Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MILITARY MANOEUVRES, 1936.

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Major George Davies) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

I have received your Address praying that I will make an Order in Council under the Military Manoeuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, a draft of which was presented to your House on the 11th day of February last.

I will comply with your advice.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles (Additional Routes) Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Helston and Porthleven Water) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Lancaster) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leeds) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Ramsey and Saint Ives Joint Water District) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Tees Valley Water Board) Bill.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Gloucester) Bill.

Bills to be read a, Second time Tomorrow.

London Passenger Transport Board Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Merton and Morden Urban District Council Bill,

Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield Transport and Electricity Board Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Buckhaven and Methil Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

JUVENILES.

Mr. GARDNER: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any records of the number of occasions during the last five years, ending on the nearest convenient date, on which Employment Exchanges have declined, in answer to employers' applications, to send employable children for possible employment on account of the unsuitability of the employment offered, or on account of poor working conditions prevailing where the work offered was carried on, or on account of low wage; and, if so, will he give the figures?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): No records are kept of the number of such cases.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the London Regional Advisory Council for 1935, in which attention was drawn to the facts that at the end of September last 9,300 vacancies were known to exist and that only 6,480 juveniles were then available, but that numbers in the


eastern area were unable to take jobs elsewhere on account of the high cost of travelling; and whether he can state what action he proposes to take to deal with this difficulty?

Mr. BROWN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 26th March to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Crowder) of which I am sending him a copy.

BENEFIT.

Mr. BUCHANAN: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give an assurance to the House that in no circumstances will action be taken for the purpose of making it a condition for the receipt of benefit that all persons who are eligible for enlistment for the Army or Navy shall be refused benefit unless they enlist?

Mr. E. BROWN: Yes, Sir, so far as the present Government are concerned.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the current report that a committee has been set up in his Department to consult with the War Office in this matter, and is there any truth in that report?

Mr. BROWN: Not concerning this matter. I have already given an answer about the matter of posters, if that is the concern of the hon. Member.

DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. BATEY: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in the county of Durham in receipt of unemployment benefit, and those in receipt of assistance from the Unemployment Assistance Board, at the latest available date?

Mr. E. BROWN: At 27th April, 1936, there were 31,692 insured persons with claims admitted for unemployment benefit, and 67,379 with applications authorised for unemployment allowances, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the county of Durham (including the county boroughs).

Mr. BATEY: asked the Minister of Labour the number of individual and household removals of unemployed persons and their families arranged by the Ministry of Labour or the Commis-

sioner for the distressed areas from the county of Durham to other areas during 1933, 1934, 1935, and up to the latest available date for 1936?

Mr. BROWN: As the reply contains a, number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The number of persons from Durham for whom employment was found in other areas during each of the years 1933–1935 and the first three months of 4936 is as follows:


1933
3,864


1934
3,968


1935
8,525


1936 (January, February and March)
2,450

The exact number of families assisted to remove from Durham is not known, but estimates for the periods mentioned are as follow:


1933
150


1934
300


1935
900


1936 (January, February and March)
350

CASUAL LABOURERS (LONDON DOCKS).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that casual labourers at the London docks who are unemployed have to get their insurance cards stamped twice a day at the riverside huts; whether he is aware that, in making this double journey, some men have to walk seven or eight miles daily; and whether he will consider an alteration of the regulations at present in force?

Mr. E. BROWN: This question is at present being examined by the National Joint Council for Dock Labour, and I must await its conclusions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long this council is likely to be considering this matter?

Mr. BROWN: I am not able to give an answer yet. The hon. Member and the House know that this is a very difficult and complicated matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is a very urgent matter.

INSURANCE (PRIVATE GARDENERS).

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: asked the Minister of Labour whether the question of including private gardeners within the scheme of unemployment insurance is now being considered by the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee; and what opportunity Members of this House will have of expressing their views?

Mr. HUNTER: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in connection with the proposal to insure private gardeners against unemployment; and what arrangements are contemplated for obtaining evidence on the subject?

Mr. E. BROWN: As required by Section 14 of the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Act, I have referred the question of the inclusion of private gardeners in the Unemployment Insurance scheme to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee. The committee have published notice of their intention to inquire into it, and of their readiness to receive representations from persons interested in the matter. I understand that the committee are arranging to hear evidence shortly. I would suggest that any Member who wishes to place his views before the committee should comunicate with the secretary of the committee at the Ministry of Labour, Montagu House.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: When the committee are ready to receive evidence, will notice of the fact be given in the country districts?

Mr. BROWN: We shall do our best to make it known, and the chairman of the committee recently gave an explanation over the wireless.

TRAINEES (LIVERPOOL).

Mr. LOGAN: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements have been made with the Liverpool Employment Exchanges whereby a trainee on completion of four years' service can mutually agree with his employer upon terms of wages to be paid; and whether this arrangement is working satisfactorily?

Mr. KIRBY: asked the Minister of Labour the reasons for the issue of special instructions to the manager of the Liverpool Employment Exchange by the north-western divisional controller, having for their object special efforts to

secure trainees in an extended range of employments on the understanding that such trainees will be assisted in finding employment, at wages to be settled between the employer and the trainee, regardless of prevailing trade union rates and conditions?

Mr. GIBBINS: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is upon his instructions or authority that the Liverpool Employment Exchange are now extending the system of training to a number of occupations, including the distributive trades, guaranteeing to find the trainees work when training is completed, the wages and conditions to be negotiated between the trainee and the employer?

Mr. W. A. ROBINSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is in accordance with his instructions that the divisional controller in the north-western area has authorised the Liverpool manager to proceed with the enrolment of trainees in all manner of trades; and when these men finish their training at approximately 80 per cent. of efficiency, as compared to fully-trained craftsmen, what arrangements will be made to place them in industry with due regard to established trade union agreements?

Mr. E. BROWN: The instructions to which the hon. Members refer arise from the decision to extend to unemployed men in the Merseyside area the opportunities for obtaining training in a Government training centre. In view of the continuance of heavy unemployment in this area, I decided that such opportunities should no longer be withheld from these men. The arrangements are the same as those which have applied in other areas for a good many years, and, I may mention, do not include the distributive trades. They will, I hope, have the result of giving to some unemployed men from the Merseyside an opportunity to gain a footing in some occupations in which there is an expanding demand for labour. I might add that since the end of February last, when training facilities were first extended to Merseyside, over 500 men from that area have availed themselves of the opportunity for training thus afforded them.

Mr. LOGAN: Do I gather that this is not a question of dilution to jeopardise the position of trade unionists in these occupations?

Mr. BROWN: Certainly not, Sir. This is an attempt to put peroration into practice and to provide work for the workless.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: Can the Minister inform the House what trades require the bringing about of an expanding demand for skilled operatives?

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Gentleman will put that question down, I will gladly give him a long list.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that, as far as possible, the scheme is made voluntary, and not a primary condition for benefit?

Mr. BROWN: That is a misapprehension. The thing is entirely voluntary. I have no means whatever of compelling them to go to training centres. The opportunity is there; it is a very fine opportunity. They get the aptitude they have not had before, and, therefore, a finer chance to get work, and we intend to do all that we can to help them.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that these trainees are not used in order to reduce the standard of life of skilled men?

Mr. BROWN: I am certainly fully prepared to discuss with hon. Members any question they may have in mind concerning conditions at any time.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Will the Minister give us the assurance that these trainees will not go into the expanding industry of mining?

Mr. BROWN: The answer to that question is, that I only wish the mining industry were expanding.

Mr. MESSER: Will the Minister give his attention to the answer which he has given in relation to the complaint made in reference to Briggs Bodies, Limited, of Dagenham?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member has drawn attention to that matter, and I will look into it.

AGED WORKERS.

Mr. SEXTON: asked the Minister of Labour what would be the estimated saving to the Unemployment Fund of taking off the recipients equal in number to the present workers in industry who are 60 years and over?

Mr. E. BROWN: The number of insured workers in industry aged 60 to 65 is estimated to be about 450,000. The average amount of unemployment benefit paid to the same number of adult recipients is about £25,000,000. The hon. Member no doubt appreciates, however, that the group of workers aged 60 and over are not interchangeable industrially with the same number of adult persons irrespective of age.

ALLOWANCE.

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the Minister of Labour the reason why Mr. George Blackett, residing at Haswell Colliery, county Durham, has suffered a reduction of 1s. per week in his unemployment allowance; whether it is due to the recent increase of 3d. a day in the wages of his son who is aged 16; and whether he is aware that this boy is the only person in the family who is employed and earns on the average 12s. 9d. per week, and that there are six children in the family under the age of 14?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that they are making inquiries. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as the result is known.

Mr, SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the inquiry?

Mr. BROWN: I will do my best.

TRANSFERENCE (WEITEHAVEN).

Mr. ANDERSON: asked the Minister of Labour why three men were sent on 23rd March through the White-haven Employment Exchange for employment at the Sherwood Colliery, near Mansfield, and were not allowed to commence work until nine days after their arrival in Mansfield; and what was the additional cost incurred by the non-employment of these men?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

OVERTIME WORKING.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will be in a position to give a report on the negotiations he is having with the employers on the curtailment of overtime before the House rises for Whitsuntide?

Mr. E. BROWN: The discussions which my predecessor and I have had with the


representatives of various industries were on the general subject of the absorption of more workpeople into employment and their object was mainly to stimulate active consideration within the industries of the various questions which arise. Among these is the possibility of increasing the number of persons in employment by reducing hours of work and by restricting overtime. Last week I met representatives of the distributive trades, this morning I met representatives of the catering trade and this afternoon I am meeting both employers' and trade union representatives in the cotton industry. I am assured that the effect of the discussions has been to cause closer attention to be given to these questions, but I am not at present in a position to make a report which would add materially to the information which I have already given to the House.

Mr. TINKER: If I put a question down after Whitsuntide will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot say, but if a subsequent question is put down I will try to bring the information up to date by way of a general report.

MEANS TEST.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the declaration widely signed by Members of Parliament, doctors, teachers, etc., and sent to him urging the abolition of the means test; and whether he is prepared to accede to this request?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The reply to the first part of the question is "Yes, Sir," and to the second is "No, Sir."

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Department not prepared to take into account the unnecessary suffering already imposed as a consequence of the means test, and end this crime against the masses of the people in this country?

Mr. MAXTON: Are we to take it from the Minister's very categorical reply that the Regulations are now in their final form?

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: (for Mr. LUNN) asked the Minister of Labour if he will make inquiries as to

whether any form of means test is being applied at Employment Exchanges in Yorkshire to recipients of statutory unemployment benefit; and will he inform the House at what exchanges these questions into household means have been asked and applied?

Mr. LEE: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that resentment is felt owing to the fact that officials at the Employment Exchanges in the Ripley and Alfreton districts in Derbyshire, when new applications for statutory benefit are being made, put questions to married men with dependants regarding the amount they allow their wives for household expenses and how much they keep for themselves and afterwards spend on drink and tobacco, etc.; has any new regulation been issued to justify any such questions; and will he put a stop to such practices?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No form of means test is applied to claimants for unemployment benefit. If, however, there is a claim for dependants' benefit, the claimant is in certain circumstances required by the Unemployment Insurance Act to show that the dependant is wholly or mainly maintained by him. To enable him to do this, certain questions are put to him about the amounts contributed by himself and other members of his family to the support of the dependants.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Does the Minister not know that, as far as a great crowd of Yorkshire miners who are working part-time are concerned, when they approach the end of their 156 statutory pay days the officers are making inquiries as to their income and everything else, before there is any application whatever for public assistance?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: This is a question connected with benefit.

FORTY-HOUR WORKING WEEK.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make it clear when he attends the 1936 session of the International Labour Conference that the British Government favour the reduction of hours of work together with the maintenance of wages, and will collaborate actively in bringing about the conclusion of draft convention:, to apply the principle of the 40-hour week to individual industries?

Mr. E. BROWN: I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the proposals to be discussed at the coming International Labour Conference. The subject on the agenda is the application to certain industries of the principle of the general Forty-Hour Week Draft Convention adopted at the last Conference. As was pointed out in the statement sent by His Majesty's Government to the International Labour Office, this general Convention does not provide any safeguard against the reduction of earnings consequent upon the reduction of hours. Draft Conventions, therefore, applying the general Convention to individual industries would not provide for the reduction of hours of work together with the maintenance of wages.

Mr. THORNE: Would it not be within the province of the delegates to insert a Clause in the Convention to protect wages?

Mr. BROWN: No, that was refused last year, when the Convention was adopted. This phrase was voted on and accepted:
The principle of the 40-hour week shall be applied in such a manner that the standard of living is not reduced.
That is by no means the same thing.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether they will be able to maintain output even if they reduce the hours?

Mr. BROWN: All these things, of course, are considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

CLUBS (RIGHT OF ENTRY).

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the statement by the Commissioner of Police in the Metropolitan Area that the police are bound to continue to secure evidence against suspected clubs by themselves drinking and gambling until they have seen and heard enough to justify an application for a search warrant; and whether he will take steps to end this practice by introducing into his promised clubs legislation a provision giving the police the right of entry into all clubs under proper safeguards?

Mr. HOPKIN: asked the Home Secretary whether, in framing his clubs legislation to be introduced next year, he will take into account the recommendation of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in his annual report that all clubs should be registered and the police given the right of entry?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I intend to take all relevant matters into account in this connection.

Mr. MATHERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to mitigate the circumstances in the meantime?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means.

Mr. MATHERS: The practice that is going on in the meantime is an objectionable one. Is there any action the right hon. Gentleman can take to prevent what is being done now?

Sir J. SIMON: I think that the Commissioner of Police must in this matter be allowed discretion. He is only endeavouring to administer the law.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is more gambling done in private houses than there is in these clubs?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not myself aware of it.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any communications on this subject from the Club and Institute Union, strongly protesting against giving the police the right of entry into clubs, and that most of the clubs affiliated to this union are Radical and Labour clubs?

COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. LUNN: asked the Home Secretary the names of former Commissioners of the Metropolitan police who have been granted retiring pensions or gratuities and the amounts since the resignation of Sir Edward Henry in 1918, showing the length of appointment in each case?

Sir J. SIMON: Of the Commissioners who have left the force since 1918, only Sir William Horwood retired with a pension or gratuity. He was granted a pension of £1,000 a year after 10 years' police


service including eight and a half years as commissioner.

SHORT SERVICE CONSTABLES.

Mr. LUNN: asked the Home Secretary whether the recruiting for short-term service men for the Metropolitan police is satisfactory; how far the numbers recruited compare with original estimates; what, number of these men since joining for 10 years' service have been dismissed or discharged the service; what number have applied to join other forces where the 10 years plan does not operate; and how many of such applications were granted or refused?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir; the numbers recruited are well up to requirements. Four short service constables have been required to resign and the services of four others have been dispensed with as not likely to become efficient constables. Eighty-seven of them have made applications to join other forces, and of these 30 have secured appointments. In three cases permission to make a further application has -been refused where an earlier application had proved unsuccessful.

PROMOTION.

Mr. DAY: asked the Home Secretary what action he intends to take to re-move the growing dissatisfaction among the younger members of the Metropolitan police that they are debarred from promotion to higher rank than inspector by the procedure governing the Police College?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not aware of any such dissatisfaction.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that previous to the formation of the Police College men joining the police force were promised that they would be allowed to obtain by promotion the rank of superintendent?

Sir J. SIMON: The actual situation is this. Any Member of the Force who is under 26 years of age, or in exceptional cases is under 28, can apply to be considered for the Police College, and all men who cannot otherwise rise above the rank of inspector are told before joining the police force of the position governing their entry.

Mr. Day: Does that apply to men who joined the Force before the Police College was instituted?

MOTORING OFFENCES.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Home Secretary particulars of the number of charges and summonses in respect of alleged motoring offences dealt with by the Vine Street sub-division for the. three months ended 31st March, 1935 and 1936, respectively; and, if there is an increase, whether he will state the cause?

Sir J. SIMON: I am informed that the number of persons charged or summoned in respect of motor vehicles offences in the Vine Street Sub-Divisional area in the three months ended 31st March, 1936, was 2,843, and that the number in the corresponding period of 1935 was 1,679. The increase this year was due almost entirely to cases of obstruction, lighting and parking-place offences and offences relating to loitering by cab drivers.

Mr. MATHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very widespread opinion, that the police in this section are being urged by those in control to concentrate upon these minor offences to the detriment of putting in work upon more serious cases?

Sir J. SIMON: I certainly am not aware of any such general impression, and if it were the case I take the responsibility of saying that there is no truth in it.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a motor driver is liable to be summoned for exceeding the speed limit and also for going too slowly?

LONG-SERVICE INCREMENT.

McENTEE: asked the Home Secretary whether at any stage of the consideration of the zeal and efficiency of a member of the Metropolitan police in respect of long-service increments there is considered the number of arrests, summonses, and cautions made by each officer?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. A constable's promotion and remuneration in this country do not depend on multiplying arrests, summonses, or cautions at all.

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Home Secretary the number of cases in the Metropolitan police in which the long-service increments due to police at 17


and 22 years' service, respectively, have been withheld during the past two years, and the number withdrawn on grounds of alleged lack of zeal in the performance of duty?

Sir J. SIMON: During the two years ending on 30th ultimo about 1,100 cases were considered for the grant of a long-service increment and the increment was withheld in 58 cases. In the same period 14 such increments were withdrawn on grounds of lack of zeal and efficiency.

CELLULOID ARTICLES.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to introduce legislation for the prevention of injury and death due to the numerous everyday articles, particularly toys on sale made of celluloid or other highly inflammable substance, which are purchased mostly by a public ignorant of the danger incurred?

Sir. J. SIMON: I am afraid that this is a matter which it would be most difficult to deal with by legislation.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. W. ROBERTS: asked the Home Secretary what action he is taking to ensure that adequate supplies of bleaching powder would be available for decontamination purposes in the event of a widespread attack upon the civil population by means of mustard gas and lewisite?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Estimates of possible requirements are being prepared, and the Government hope shortly to examine with the manufacturers of the commodity how best the necessary stocks can be accumulated and maintained.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. SEXTON: asked the Home Secretary how much of the £4,807,645 referred to in Cmd. 5077, page 7, paid to insurance companies as premiums under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, goes to injured workers and the dependants of workers killed in industry?

Sir J. SIMON: I am unable to add anything to the particulars given in the statistics mentioned by the hon. Member except as regards the amount of the legal and medical expenses incurred in connection with the settlement of claims. Precise information is not available, but I understand that for the members of the Accident Offices' Association, which includes most of the larger companies, these expenses are estimated at 4¼ per cent. of the premium income.

WARDER (BLOOD TRANFUSION).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Home Secretary on what grounds Warder J. Jelly, of Wandsworth Prison, was refused permission to give a blood transfusion in a serious case at St. James's Hospital, Wandsworth; whether he is aware that Warder Jelly afterwards made arrangements to give the blood transfusion in his own time; and whether he can state the reasons why the warder in question has suffered a reduction in rank?

Sir J. SIMON: This officer has asked for an interview with the Prison Commissioners, which will be granted in due course. I should therefore prefer not to make any statement on the matter today, and perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to repeat his question in a week's time.

COLONEL LOPEZ.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the disclosure of the recent activities of Colonel Lopez against the interests of this country, he proposes to revoke the certificate of naturalisation granted to him?

Sir J. SIMON: I made immediate inquiries on hearing the Foreign Secretary's statement on Monday, and I am informed that this man is a British subject by birth. No question of revoking any certificate of naturalisation therefore arises.

Mr. HENDERSON: In view of the serious position which might have arisen as a result of the accusations that this country was supplying dum-dum bullets and ammunition to Abyssinia, is it not possible to check the activities of this man?

Sir J. SIMON: The police will do everything they can in that direction. I need hardly say that they will do their best.

Mr. SHINWELL: Were inquiries made as to the people who employed this man?

Sir J. SIMON: I cannot answer that question, which is entirely different from the question on the Paper, with any assurance without notice, but I think the hon. Member may take it that careful inquiries have been made.

Mr. HENDERSON: Do the police know where this man is?

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: asked the Attorney-General whether it is the intention of the Government to prosecute the self-styled Colonel Lopez for high treason?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on Monday, 18th May, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. GALLAGHER: Is the Attorney-General making any attempt to find out what connection there is between Colonel Lopez and the sabotage which took place at the dockyards; and is there any intention of reinstating the shop stewards who were dismissed without any proof of any kind against them?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member has any information with regard to any connection between the gentleman in question and the events to which he has referred, I shall be glad to receive it.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions that the subversive activities of Colonel Lopez do not form a satisfactory basis for a prosecution for an indictable offence, legislation will be introduced with the object of constituting such activities an indictable offence?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am considering this matter in all its aspects, but am unable at present to make any statement.

Mr. HENDERSON: In view of the fact that the law is apparently unable to cover a case of this description, and that it is leading to a great deal of uneasiness in

the minds of many people, more especially having regard to the cynical comments with which the Italian Press have received the statement of the Foreign Secretary, will the Attorney-General bear these facts in mind?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have already stated that all aspects of the matter are being considered, and if the hon. Member has any suggestions which he would like to be considered in regard to legislation, I shall certainly consider them.

Mr. COCKS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the relations of Colonel Mezler with officials of the Italian Embassy, he will demand an apology from Signor Mussolini or, alternatively, sever diplomatic relations with the Italian Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Monday last.

Mr. COCKS: Is the Noble Lord aware that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is being ridiculed in the Italian Government-controlled Press, and is there no limit to the insults we are to receive from this foreign Power?

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Will the Under-Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to consider what action would have been taken by the Italian Government in parallel circumstances?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

Cost.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the President of the Board of Education how the present average cost of education per child in the elementary schools compares with the cost in 1913?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley).: The average cost to public funds of education per child in elementary schools in 1936 is estimated to be £14 14s. 8d. as compared with £4 15s. 2d. in 1913.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the cost is three and a-half times more to-day?

Mr. STANLEY: It is partly due to the increased cost of everything—the increase in teachers' salaries, and partly because to-day in schools we are providing opportunities for technical instruction and physical recreation which were not given before the War.

EGYPT AND PALESTINE.

Mr. LECKIE: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the decision of the Italian Government to annex the whole of Abyssinia and the consequent menace to our position in Africa and the Near East, the British Government will make it clear in unmistakeable terms that in no circumstances will interference on Italy's part with the existing régimes in Egypt and Palestine be permitted, and that any attempt to do so will be considered an unfriendly act and treated accordingly; and whether, in view of the changed conditions caused by developments in the air, the question of strengthening Britain's Defences in the Suez Canal area will be considered in consultation with the Egyptian Government?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): My hon. Friend realises, no doubt, that Egypt and Palestine are in separate categories. So far as Egypt is concerned, His Majestys' Government notified foreign Powers including Italy in March, 1922, that they had decided to terminate the protectorate over Egypt and that they recognised that country as a sovereign independent State. In so notifying the Powers, His Majesty's Government made it clear in unmistakeable terms that they would regard as an unfriendly act any attempt at interference in the affairs of Egypt by any Power and that they would consider any aggression against the territory of Egypt as an act to be repelled with all the means at their command. In these circumstances no further public statement appears necessary. As regards the Suez Canal area, preliminary conversations are at present being held in Cairo with a view to the negotiation of a treaty of alliance between this country and Egypt, and questions connected with the protection of the Canal are being taken into account. His Majesty's Government are responsible for the administration and protection of Palestine in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, and intend to discharge that responsibility to the full.

Sir J. LAMB: Are the Dominion Governments being kept in touch with all that is being done in that respect?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think they are in touch with everything so far as I know.

Mr. MANDER: Does that mean that the Government are prepared to act in the same way as they have done in the recent dispute between Italy and Abyssinia?

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that it is the declared policy of the Government that military sanctions are an essential part of collective security, what steps he is taking to apply these in the case of the dispute between the League of Nations and Italy with regard to Abyssinia and in general?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sanders) on 5th May, and to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) yesterday. To these I have nothing to add.

Mr. MANDER: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to say when the Government are prepared to act on the principle which he recently announced?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are supporters of collective action, not unilateral action.

Mr. MANDEB: In view of the fact that in the recent dispute the Government ruled out military sanctions altogether, are we to understand that in the future they would be willing to use them?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should have thought they had been ruled out up to the present by the League of Nations.

Mr. COCKS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the loss of a British diplomatic bag on the Addis Ababa-Jibuti railway; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?

Viscount CRANBORNE: My right hon. Friend has seen Press reports on this subject. He is making inquiries, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Mr. COCKS: In view of the fact that interference with diplomatic communications is a very serious matter, will the Foreign Secretary take action which is commensurate with the seriousness of this question?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I have already said that we are making inquiries.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Will the Noble Lord make sure that this bag was lost and not stolen?

Mr. COCKS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Bonner, a British ambulance officer, who was being rushed to Aden to be treated for a dangerous complaint, has been arrested by the Italians at Dire Dawa; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Bonner's life may be endangered by this detention, he will demand the immediate release of this British subject?

Viscount CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa has reported that Mr. Bonner left Addis Ababa for Jibuti on 13th May on his way to Aden where he intended to complete a course of treatment against rabies which had been interrupted by the destruction of the serum during the disorders at Addis Ababa. On 15th May he saw, in Dire Dawa, His Majesty's Consul at Harar, whom he informed that he had lost, or been deprived of, a bag containing a sum of money. While Mr. Bonner was making inquiries at Dire Dawa the train had left without him. His Majesty's Consul accompanied Mr. Bonner to the Italian authorities and explained the urgency of his case. On subsequently learning in Harar of Mr. Bonner's reported arrest, His Majesty's Consul again on 19th May made urgent representations to the Italian authorities, who maintained that evidence had been found of Mr. Bonner's employment with the Abyssinian forces. This allegation His Majesty's Consul denied. On 20th May he was informed that Mr. Bonner had disappeared from Dire Dawa on the night of 17th-18th May. His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa

has asked His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Jibuti to take steps to ascertain whether Mr. Bonner has reached that place by a later train. As soon as Press reports of Mr. Bonner's arrest reached London, my right hon. Friend telegraphed to His Majesty's Minister al Addis Ababa asking him to ascertain the facts. As a consequence we have received the information which I have just given. From this it will be seen that every effort is being made to ascertain Mr. Bonner's whereabouts, but for the present I have no further information.

Mr. COCKS: While thanking the Noble Lord for that information, I would like to ask him whether, in view of the fact that a British subject's life might be in danger, the Government will pursue the most energetic action to obtain his release, if he is arrested; and what right under any international law have the Italians to arrest a British subject in a neutral friendly State?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking and will take the most energetic steps to find out where Mr. Bonner is.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Sir WALDRON SMITHERS: asked the Minister of Health whether the remarks and recommendations in the letter sent to the clerk of the Monmouthshire County Council by the Ministry of Health in August, 1933, have been acted upon; and whether the defects referred to in the report have been remedied?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My Department has been in communication with the county council on this subject for some years past. Although the council's arrangements for the administration of public assistance are still open to criticism in certain. respects, I am glad to say that, according to my latest, information, there has been an improvement during the last few months.

Sir W. SMITHERS: asked the Minister of Health whether, in order to ensure that public works shall be carried out efficiently and without excessive cost, he will insist that all authorities in South Wales and Monmouthshire shall place such works to public tender?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, but in all cases in which my consent to a loan is required, I insist on public tenders if I am satisfied that this course is desirable in the interest of economy and efficiency.

Sir W. SMITHERS: asked the Minister of Health whether his recommendation to the Monmouthshire County Council to establish a sound and continuous control over their finances has been adopted; and whether the county council have accepted the Minister's offer of assistance?

Sir K. WOOD: The county council have had consultations with officers of my Department and have adopted some of the suggestions which have been, made to them. As I have already informed my hon. Friend, I am shortly to receive a deputation from the county council.

Sir CHARLES EDWARDS: Will the Minister inquire whether the hon. Member's stockbroking business is as sound, and whether it will stand the same publicity as these bodies?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENTS.

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the floating of a loan, or take other steps, to enable a national housing scheme to be carried out for the provision of adequate housing accommodation for working people at rents of 10s. a week, and bungalows for old people at rents of 5s. a week?

Sir K. WOOD: The suggestion of the hon. Member has been considered from time to time in the past. Local authorities are now actively engaged in providing low-rented houses in connection with slum clearance schemes and schemes for the abatement of overcrowding, and are experiencing no difficulty in financing their operations at reasonable rates of interest. I am satisfied that the facilities at present available for the purpose are sufficient.

Mr. TINKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether nothing could be done for the old people to get houses at cheap rents, as 10s. a week for a man and his wife is too much?

Sir K. WOOD: A great deal is being done.

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the need for a reduction in the rents of all working-class houses, including the abolition of the increase allowed on the pre-War rents, and introduce legislation amending the present Acts?

Sir K. WOOD: The Rent Restriction Acts still have more than two years to run, and I think that at the present date it would be premature to consider what, if any, future action may be required.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply? In view of the fact that wages have been reduced since 1925 by 50 per cent., is it not time that rents were also reduced?

Sir K. WOOD: That is something else.

RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1933.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Heginbottom v. Watts, laying it down that, as a result of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1933, the onus lies upon the tenant of a dwelling-house to show that the house is still controlled, even though the rateable value of the house is less than £20; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the law in order to obviate the difficulties that will otherwise arise?

Sir K. WOOD: I have seen a report of the case in question. As at present advised I do not consider that any action is called for.

Mr. FOOT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in many cases this will be an absolutely impossible burden for the tenant to shoulder, since he cannot know the history of a house before he takes it, and does he not appreciate that in a large number of cases this will utterly destroy the protection it was intended to give by the Rent Acts?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member had better wait and see whether any of the things which he anticipates do happen.

Mr. FOOT: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to wait until the mischief is done before taking any action?

Sir K. WOOD: No, but I think we had better have some general view of the position.

AGED PERSONS.

Miss WARD: asked the Minister of Health whether local authorities will qualify for subsidy under the Overcrowding Act by erecting special houses for old people and using the houses vacated by these persons for housing people for whom accommodation has to be provided as a result of the provisions of the Overcrowding Act?

Sir K. WOOD: Exchequer subsidy would be available for houses built in the circumstances indicated by my hon. Friend, if the conditions of the Act are otherwise satisfied. I referred to the desirability of building special houses for old people in a Circular which I issued in October last, and I will send my hon. Friend a copy.

Miss WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite what the National Government have done for the housing of the people?

Sir K. WOOD: By way of a poster or something of that sort?

Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the same privilege to each Member of Parliament by letting them have a copy of the Circular he is sending to the hon. Lady?

SMALLPOX.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Minister of Health how many cases of smallpox have been discovered by the port authorities of London, Liverpool, Bristol, and Cardiff on ships arriving at those ports during the last 20 years?

Sir K. WOOD: The information available is being compiled and will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Health what proportion of

the persons, other than dependants, in receipt of poor relief are over the age of 65?

Sir K. WOOD: On 1st January, 1936, the proportion of the total number of men and women in receipt of poor relief (excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals) who were over 65 years of age was 31 per cent. The figure for men and women, excluding dependent wives, is not available, but the corresponding proportion for men only was 34 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. DAY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate of the financial loss to the Treasury, for the three years ended to the last convenient date, owing to default of foreign artistes and cinema stars, working in Great Britain, not paying Income Tax on the amounts to which they were assessable; and whether he will consider taking steps to prevent the escape of the collection of similar amounts in the future?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I regret that no statistics are available on which such an estimate as the hon. Member desires could be based.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider consulting his colleagues in the Government as to the possibility of refusing permits to these artistes to appear in this country until some guarantee is given for the payment of their Income Tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I do not propose to adopt that course.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Dominions and the United States, alien artistes cannot leave the country until they have supplied evidence that they have paid their Income Tax.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no cross-channel traffic to be considered in in those cases.

Mr. STOURTON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what it would cost to concede to all serving Territorial officers their pay and allowances free of Income Tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) on 17th March last, of which I am sending him a copy, from which he will see that the allowances are not charged to tax and that in the case of pay a deduction is allowed in respect of uniform expenses. I am not in a position to say what is the amount of tax actually received by the Exchequer.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as there are over 700,000 persons engaged in industry to-day over 65 years of age, the Government intend taking any steps to increase the amount of pension under the contributory pensions scheme payable at 65 to such a figure as would permit retirement without dependence on other resources, the receipt of this additional pension to be conditional on retirement from work so as to make room for the employment of younger people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. The figure of 700,000 which the hon. Member quotes includes a large number in managerial positions or working on their own account and a further large number who, though not actually in work, describe themselves in the Census returns under the occupations they formerly followed. The number of persons over 65 now working in employment which is within the general scope of the contributory pensions scheme is about 330,000. The retirement of the main proportion of these workers would not, of course, produce anything like an equivalent number of vacancies for younger workers. It is not possible within the scope of a Parliamentary reply to discuss all the difficulties inherent in such proposals as that in the question. It is perhaps sufficient to state that any reasonably fair scheme capable of removing the main proportion of workers over 65 from the field of employment would cost at least £70,000,000 a year which would have to be raised either by additional taxation or by additional contributions.

Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these people have been in industry for over 50 years and, by hard work, have helped

to make this nation what it is to-day, and that they are willing to retire to make room for younger men if they had a guarantee of greater financial security which increased pensions would give?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will study my answer, and he will see the difficulties.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he contemplates opening negotiations with the Government of the United States of America for a new war debt settlement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the terms of the Note which was addressed to the United States Government on 10th December last (Command Paper 5042) to which at present I am not able to add anything.

BUDGET PROPOSALS (TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY, COST).

Mr. DAY: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the approximate cost to the State of the Commission appointed to investigate the 1936 Budget leakages?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The expenditure in connection with the Tribunal is expected to amount to a relatively small sum only. It is not possible at this stage to be more precise.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give the House any approximate estimate of the cost to the Treasury of preparing answers to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day)?

Mr. MORRISON: I should require two or three days' notice before I could answer that question.

GERMANY (BRITISH COMMERCIAL CREDITS).

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the average monthly amount of commercial credits that have been granted by British subjects to Germany during the past three years; and, in view of the effect that the


frozen credits in Germany have on the state of trade in this country, will he make further efforts to put an end to them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the first part of the question, I cannot add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member on 23rd March and to the hon. Members for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) and Ardwick (Mr. J. Henderson) on 30th April. Since every sale of British goods on terms of payment other than immediate payment in cash involves the grant of some form of commercial credit, it is in the nature of the case not possible to state the average monthly amount of commercial credits granted to Germany during the past three years. As regards the second part of the question, I am not clear what frozen credits the hon. Member has in mind The standstill credits have of course been in existence for a longer period than the three years which he names. If he has in mind the frozen trade debts which existed prior to the conclusion of the Anglo-German Payments Agreement of 1st November, 1934, the answer is that their liquidation is now practically complete. So far as I am aware, none of the commercial credits granted to Germany during the past three years are now frozen.

Mr. SMITH: Is the Chancellor aware of the very serious statement made by the chairman of the Unilever Company that ships were being built in Germany in order to bring food to this country?

MOTOR VEHICLES (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).

Mr. HEPWORTH: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether all the motor vehicles used in the public service and purchased by the Government within the last 12 months have been of British manufacture; and, if not, how many foreign vehicles have been bought?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I understand that all motor vehicles purchased in this country by Government Departments in the past 12 months are of British manufacture. It is believed that purchases abroad may include a very small number of second-hand foreign cars.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is proposed to extend the period of operation of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Acts beyond 1st November, 1936

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Negotiations with oversea supplying countries on the Government's proposals with regard to imports of meat are actively proceeding. Pending their completion, I am not in a position to make a statement as desired.

IMPORTED BARLEY (DUTY).

Mr. De CHAIR: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the decision of the Import Duties Advisory Committee not to recommend an increase in the duty on imported barley, he proposes to introduce any legislation to protect barley growers from the present un-remunerative prices of barley?

Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. I think that it is desirable that a full trial should be given to the new arrangements made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee as explained in the communication published in the Press on 15th May.

Mr. De CHAIR: If these arrangements made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee do not, within a reasonably short time, bring some prosperity to the barley industry will the right hon. Gentleman see that other measures are taken?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have said that a full trial is to be given to these arrangements, and I think that also answers my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

KEW GARDENS.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of shelters that have been erected at Kew Gardens; and whether indication of their position in the gardens is given on the plan of the lay-out of the gardens which is exhibited at each entrance?

Mr. ELLIOT: The reply to the first part of the question is three. The position of all buildings in the gardens is indicated on the key plan which is ex-


hibited at the entrance gates and of which copies may be purchased there. I am arranging for the exhibition at the entrance gates also of the index, which is printed on the back of the key plan. I am obliged to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to this matter, since it appears that the index is at present concealed by the method of posting.

AUSTRALIA (BRITISH IMMIGRANTS).

Mr. STOREY: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the balance of population in Australia is only maintained because of the excess of Southern European immigrants over British emigrants, he proposes to take any steps in conjunction with the Government of Australia to encourage British immigiation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on this matter which I gave on 12th May to the hon. Member for Moss-side (Mr. Duckworth).

SCOTLAND (FORESHORE, FIFE).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the amenities of the beach from Buckhaven to West Wemyss, on the Fife coast, are being destroyed by the redd and rubbish which is deposited all along the foreshore from the adjacent pits; and whether he will take steps to put an end to this nuisance?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The Department of Health have received no complaints on this subject. I am, however, having inquiry made as to whether any nuisance falling within the Public Health Acts exists, and will communicate with the hon. Member when I have received a report on the matter.

Mr. GALLACHER: May I ask the Under-Secretary to spend his holidays on that part of the Fife coast and he will then realise the need for action in this respect?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have spent many holidays in Fife.

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the hardship now being experienced by persons who have lost their businesses through economic sanctions, he is now prepared to reconsider the question of providing some compensation on an ex-gratia, basis to the victims of public policy

Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I regret that I can add nothing to the answer on this subject which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 12th May.

Mr. WILLIAM'S: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether his Department are not now receiving a very large number of complaints of the great hardship to which people have been subjected in this connection; and in the circumstances will he not re-consider the matter?

Captain WALLACE: I have already said that I cannot add anything to the answer already given by my right hon. Friend on this subject.

Mr. SANDYS: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider it just that, while the Government are giving compensation to the people of Yugoslavia, they should refuse it to British subjects?

ITALY (IMPERIAL AIRWAYS ROUTE).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the amount of British money paid to Italy on account of the Imperial Airways route to Africa and Australia while passing through that country since the imposition of sanctions in the Italo-Abyssinian dispute?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I regret that the information requested is not available. The only payments involved are those which are normally incidental to the use of an air route, and these are entirely a matter for the company itself.

Mr. MANDER: Have these payments continued since the imposition of sanctions?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir, but they are only charges incurred in connection with housing and landing fees and have nothing to do with the export of munitions or the giving of credit to Italy.

BRITISH ARMY (TROOPING PROGRAMME).

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in all future cases where regiments are moved from stations in the western hemisphere to stations in the east or vice versa, thus passing by this country, he will ascertain whether it is possible to adjust trooping arrangements so as to allow the men to spend some time with their families at home, and thus break their long spell of separation?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): This question has received sympathetic consideration on many occasions, but I regret that it would not be possible to delay a troopship, to enable men of a battalion to take leave, without dislocating the trooping programme and causing expense to the taxpayer. I might add, however, that when individual men are posted from eastern to western stations, and no question of delaying a troopship arises, it is the practice to grant leave in the United Kingdom en route.

Captain PLUGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of recent complaints that troopships call sometimes for only a few hours in British ports before proceeding to their destination in some distant part of the world?

Sir V. WARRENDER: Yes, Sir. I am aware that there have been complaints, but this is a question of expense and of the delay to troopships which would be involved.

Mr. SHINWELL: But is it not true that the expense would be infinitesimal and that, compared with advantages which would accrue to the men concerned and their families, it is a small matter?

Sir V. WARRENDER: It would not be true to say that the expense is inconsiderable.

Mr. WOODS: Is it not possible to organise the transport in such a way

that it would not be necessary to make these journeys continuous?

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the lengthy periods during which wives of men on service with the Fifth Division in the East have been separated from their husbands; and whether he can readjust movements of troops so as to diminish these long periods of separation?

Sir V. WARRENDER: My right hon. Friend is aware of the situation referred to and is watching the matter carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

EXCLUDED AREAS.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State fu India whether he will take steps to see chat the rights now possessed by the people of the excluded areas in respect to forests and natural resources are protected and that their lands are not alienated in the interests of the British or Indian investors?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): Protection such as the hon. Member seeks to secure is one of the objects of the provisions in the Government of India Act. 1935, relating to Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas. I am satisfied that these provisions are adequate for the purpose he has in mind.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India has been drawn to the proceedings of the excluded areas conference held in Lucknow in April last; and whether, in view of the opposition to the policy of His Majesty's Government on this question expressed by responsible members of the Indian legislatures and the leaders of labour, and in the interests of the people of these areas, the Government will now consider a revision of their policy?

Mr. BUTLER: I have not seen the proceedings of the conference referred to, but I am aware that the decision of Parliament on the policy connected with excluded and partially excluded areas under the new Government of India Act has been criticised in the Legislative Assembly and elsewhere in India. The


answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. The Government have no intention of asking Parliament to reconsider its decision embodied in Section 91 of the Act and in the Government of India (Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas) Order, 1936.

PROPAGANDA.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in response to the demands made in the Indian legislatures, the Government of India has made any representations to the Secretary of State for India in regard to films and other propaganda calculated to misrepresent India; whether the Government of India in its representations requested that some action should be taken to bring this matter to the notice of the League of Nations; and what steps, if any, have been taken by His Majesty's Government in this matter?

Mr. BUTLER: Representations have been received from the Government of India on this subject, and the question of bringing the matter to the notice of the League of Nations is under consideration.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will furnish the names of the members of the selection committee which, under the arrangements announced by the India Office on 12th May, will next August appoint candidates to the Indian Civil Service?

Mr. BUTLER: I am not in a position to give this information.

Sir A. KNOX: When the time comes to appoint these members, will the hon. Gentleman use his influence to secure the appointment of officers with some knowledge of the conditions of India and not more Socialists from either the Opposition or the Government benches?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CRUISERS.

Mr. DONNER: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the reason why no sums have been allotted for the rearmament of the three Hawkins-class cruisers in the Estimates covering the period up to March, 1937?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont).

Mr. DONNER: Arising out of that reply, is it not a fact that, unless sums are allocated for this purpose, this country will possess eight fewer cruisers on 1st January, 1937, compared with 1st January of this year, since five "C" class cruisers will be scrapped altogether?

Mr. DONNER: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the reason why more money has been voted for demilitarising the cruiser "Vindictive," than for building any cruisers of this year's programme?

Mr. EMMOTT: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that Part II, paragraph 26, of the White Paper of 3rd March states that five cruisers will be included in the 1936 programme, he will give the reasons why sums are allotted in the Supplementary Estimate (Navy), dated 28th April, for building four cruisers only, thus deferring the building of a fifth until after 31st March, 1937?

Lord STANLEY: The present cadet training cruiser "Frobisher" has to be taken in hand for removal of her 7.5 inch guns before 31st December and is due for large refit in any case. It is essential therefore to have a cruiser ready to replace "Frobisher" by the end of the year, and "Vindictive" has been selected. In view of this and of the need to demilitarise her by 31st December in order to comply with the tonnage specification of the London Naval Treaty, 1930, a relatively large sum has been provided in the Supplementary Estimate for demilitarising her and fitting her out for her new service. Of the five cruisers of the 1930 programme orders for two are due to be placed in September, 1936. Of the other three cruisers two will be built at the Royal Dockyards and one by contract. The orders for these three ships are due to be placed in mid-March, 1937, and although a small amount is provided for spending on the two dockyard ships in this Estimate, no instalments on the contract built ship will be earned in the financial year. Consequently no pro-


vision is made in the Supplementary Estimate for the fifth vessel.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will these demilitarised cruisers form the nucleus of the new League of Nations force?

Mr. DONNER: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state why, since it is the Government's intention to scrap five C-class cruisers this year, one of these ships is now undergoing, or has just completed, a refit at Devonport?

Mr. CARTLAND: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how much has been spent on reconditioning the five C-class cruisers during the last 12 months?

Lord STANLEY: During the past financial year no money has been spent on reconditioning those C-class cruisers which may be included among the ships to be scrapped beyond expenditure necessary for their normal maintenance.

DESTROYERS.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of destroyers in the Fleet available on 31st December of this year; and how many of these will, at that date, have passed the age limit of 12 years?

Lord STANLEY: On the basis of the London Naval Treaty, 1930, allowance of 150,000 tons it is estimated that on 31st December of this year there would be 117 completed destroyers in the British and Dominion Navies, of which 43 would have passed 12 years of age. Negotiations are, however, now proceeding to obtain agreement to the retention of an additional 40,000 tons, which would represent another 37 destroyers all past 12 years of age. In the latter connection I would point out to the hon. Member that the age limit for destroyers laid down after 31st December, 1920, is 16 years. At the end of this year there will be 25 destroyers being built.

Mr. CHURCHILL: When my Noble Friend speaks about negotiations to obtain agreement, is it not a fact that the escalator clause can be brought into operation by an act of notification, and that it does not involve the operation of consent necessarily.

Lord STANLEY: It might not necessarily involve that, but it is better to get an agreed solution.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Is it admitted that notification is a sufficient reason for action under the escalator clause?

Lord STANLEY: We should prefer to get it by agreement, if possible.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But, nevertheless, notification is in itself by the Treaty a justification.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what financial authority there is for making contracts for nine destroyers?

Lord STANLEY: The contracts for these destroyers have not been placed. The Admiralty have merely made an anticipatory announcement, which is for the general convenience, as to the manner in which they intend to distribute the orders.

TURKEY (WARSHIPS).

Miss WARD: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what explanation he can give of the withdrawal of tenders sent in from the Naval dockyards for warships for Turkey?

Lord STANLEY: As the Royal Dockyards never tender for warships for foreign countries the question does not arise.

Miss WARD: Can the Noble Lord give any explanation of the report which appeared in the Press?

Lord STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot be responsible for that.

CIGARETTES (GIFT COUPONS).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: asked the Parliamentary Secretary, to the Admiralty whether any official instructions have been issued by the Admiralty prohibiting any use in the Fleet of schemes for free-gift-with-order coupons or any other type of gift coupons in connection with cigarettes, etc., purchased for supply to naval personnel?

Lord STANLEY: Yes, Sir. Regulations to this effect covering duty-free cigarettes and tobacco have been introduced.

GERMAN NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. EMMOTT: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the official German naval gazette states that Germany has 36 German submarines built and building, whereas her declared programme represented 28 as the maximum German submarine strength for the financial year 1935–38; and whether he can give details of these additional eight new submarines?

Lord STANLEY: Yes, Sir; Germany is under no obligation to declare a programme, and the figure of 28 merely represents the figure which Germany was prepared to publish last December; but the Admiralty have no reason to believe that Germany's naval construction is not within the limits laid down in the AngloGerman Naval Agreement. I regret that I am unable to give the details asked for in the last part of the question.

Sir RONALD ROSS: Has my Noble Friend any information as to the average size of these submarines—whether their average is smaller or larger than ours?

Lord STANLEY: Smaller, on the average.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that, according to the official German naval gazette, a cruiser has recently been laid down in addition to the two 8-inch gun cruisers building under Germany's declared programme; and whether he is able to state whether this ship is to be armed with 6-inch guns or 8-inch guns?

Lord STANLEY: Yes, Sir. The details with regard to this ship have not been published.

SEWERAGE SCHEME, MID-GLAMORGAN.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to announce his decision upon the the amount of grant towards the construction of the Mid-Glamorgan sewerage scheme; and whether he will expedite this scheme with a full grant, both to benefit the health of the people and to help this distressed area in providing work for the unemployed?

Sir K. WOOD: As I have already informed the hon. Member, the Commissioner for the Special Areas has informed the councils concerned that as separate schemes for the disposal of the sewage of the several areas could be provided of equal adequacy to the joint scheme contemplated, at a saving in capital cost of £90,000, he is not prepared to offer grant in respect of the joint scheme. If, however, the councils should desire to submit applications for grant in respect of separate schemes for the improvement of their existing disposal arrangements, he will be prepared to consider them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister reconsider his decision?

Sir K. WOOD: This is a matter for the commissioner.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: It may be for the convenience of the House if I inform hon. Members that the Chairman of Ways and Means is postponing until next week the consideration of the Private Bill set down for 7.30 to-night. The Debate arranged for to-day will, therefore, occupy the whole of the sitting. Next week's business will be:
Monday: Committee stage of the Air Navigation Bill; Report stage of the Tithe Money Resolution.
Tuesday, and until 7.30 on Wednesday: Report and Third Reading of the Education Bill. It is understood that the Chairman of Ways and Means intends to put down a Private Bill for consideration at 7.30 on Wednesday.
Thursday: Report stage of the Navy Supplementary Estimate, which it is hoped to obtain by 7.30. Afterwards, we shall make further progress with the Air Navigation Bill.
Friday: Motion for the Whitsuntide Recess until Tuesday, 9th June.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken, including consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are to have the Unemployment Insurance


Regulations, and how the Government propose to implement their undertaking that those Regulations would be brought before the House this Spring?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not that information.

Mr. MANDER: Is the Prime Minister not aware that 24th June is Midsummer Day?

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the postponement of the consideration of the private Bill this evening has any connection with an important private function which is taking place in the House to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: None at all.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Prime Minister aware that we were promised these Unemployment Regulations by the Spring, and that we cannot now get them before the Whitsuntide Recess, which carries us well into June? For the sake of the dignity of Parliament is it not really the concern of the Prime Minister as to when we are to get what is, perhaps, the most important piece of domestic work?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am extremely sorry that I cannot say when they will be introduced, but I cannot keep all these matters in my head.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But this is a most important piece of domestic work, and may I ask the Prime Minister to make a statement about it himself one day? We have been put off day by day and week by week until it has become a positive scandal. Could not the Prime Minister make a personal statement on the actual position within a day or two?

Mr. ATTLEE: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Lord President of the Council, when he was Prime Minister more than a year ago, told us that good progress was being made with the new Regulations? We have been asking for them ever since at regular intervals, and we are constantly put off. How long is that to go on in connection with a matter of vital importance?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have told the House quite frankly that I do not know. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

Mr. SHINWELL: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot say when the Regulations are to be introduced, can we have the information from the Minister of Labour?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Apart from a question being put down could not the Prime Minister undertake, in view of the importance of the matter, to make a statement on it between now and the Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. COCKS: Will the Prime Minister say whether there is anything wrong with the Minister of Labour?
Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, a Supplementary Estimate for a New Service may be considered in Committee of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to he considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

SHOPS BILL. [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
That, in the case of the Folkestone Pier and Lift [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.
Resolution agreed to.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) BILL. [Lords].

Leave given to the Committee on Group H of Private Bills to make a Special Report.

Special Report brought up and read;

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

BILLS REPORTED.

AXBRIDGE RURAL DISTRICT, COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

GRAVESEND AND MILTON WATERWORKS BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

EAST LOTHIAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from

Standing Committee A: Mr. Patrick; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Bracken.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Mr. T. Cook and Mr. Louis Smith; and had appointed in substitution: Major Astor and Sir Ernest Shepperson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Grampian Electricity Supply Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Electricity Supply (Meters) Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Alexander Scott's Hospital." [Alexander Scott's Hospital Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (METERS) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]

ALEXANDER SCOTT'S HOSPITAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered, (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered upon Monday next.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

7TH ALLOTTED DAY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1936.

CLASS I.

TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £217,113 (including a Supplementary sum of £13,262), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the suns necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, and the Salary of the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence." —[Note.—£145,000 has been voted on account.]

3.51 p.m.

The MINISTER for the COORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): Rather more than two months ago, the Prime Minister submitted proposals for putting the national defences in order. Among those proposals was the appointment of a new Minister, with duties which were defined in the White Paper. Perhaps I might remind the Committee of some of the main headings of the duties which were to be entrusted to him. They were to include the supervision of the Committee of Imperial Defence organisation, the coordination of executive action and the progress reports of the various Service Departments, the discernment of matters requiring attention, and acting for the Prime Minister in the event of his inability to preside at meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The new Minister was also to keep personally in touch with the Chiefs of Staff Sub-committee and to act as Chairman of the Principal Supply Officers Committee. Nine weeks ago I assumed my new office. I should like to thank hon. Members for the forbearance and, in many cases helpfulness, which they have shown. I gather that the close season is now over, and that I stand to be shot at. I cannot anticipate the topics that may be raised in various parts of the Committee, but it will probably be convenient if I try to give an account of my brief stewardship.
I begin by reminding the Committee that so far as the party below the Gangway are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman who, I understand, will follow me, admitted in the Debate on the White Paper, the dangers of the present situation. We begin, therefore, on common ground. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will go further with me in agreeing that our dangers are increased and not diminished by the liabilities assumed in the interests of collective security. The peace system usually comes in for examination in the Debates, which have taken place with great frequency lately, upon foreign affairs, when our foreign policy is discussed almost in the abstract. Perhaps it will he helpful, in getting our ideas of foreign policy into relation with reality, to spend a day in considering questions of defence. I am sure that the Committee are agreed in thinking that Great Britain has a contribution, and, indeed, an outstanding contribution, to make to peace. The line of division between the Government and their supporters on the one hand, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, seems to fall between those who think that there is something ominous in preparation and those who are persuaded, as I am, that our plans for defence not only will not alarm a single nation in the world, but will actually foster the all-important sense of world security.
When I took up my new duties I found that considerable strides had already been made in the preliminary stages of repairing the deficiencies that had been observed. It is a mistake to think that the elaborate and efficient machinery of the Committee of Imperial Defence stood idle until the House had approved the White Paper. The Prime Minister described some of the results achieved, for instance, by the Supply Committee, who have engaged in very strenuous exertions under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Robinson. I propose to speak later of this part of my duties. I want first to try to tell the Committee what I have attempted to do in connection with what I may call the primary functions of the three Services.
Let me say at once that I have not pulled up anything by the roots. I have not made a clean sweep. I have not even been ambitious enough to assume the mantle of a reformer. In these last few weeks I have rather been engaged in


preparing for myself an agenda for taking the questions that seem ripe for consideration, and preparing the ground for any fuller or more searching investigation which examination of the first questions might prove to be necessary. The Committee are already acquainted with two of those preliminary investigations which the sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence are making, into the question of the battleship and into certain questions connected with the Fleet Air Arm. Perhaps I may inform the Committee that I am intending to undertake, and indeed am undertaking, that preliminary inquiry myself. The subjects which are being considered are those concerning the provision of personnel, periods of service and reserves. It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who called attention a little while ago to the question of the Fleet Air Arm. I am not covering the large field which he traversed, but I am undertaking the inquiry in the form in which I propose with the complete concurrence of both the Services concerned. I think I am not over-stating when I say that they have welcomed the method which I propose to pursue.
It is said that the scope of these two inquiries—if I may dwell for a moment upon them—is too narrow. It is very attractive to lay out a grand plan for a spectacular decision. That may come. I hope I shall not shrink from any decision, however important, which may be necessary if I am convinced that it is necessary; but my own inclination is to attempt to dispose, with questions of this sort, of the basic facts. My experience is that if you can settle matters in that way very Often the other parts of the inquiry fall easily into their proper places. I think I am right, in spite of whatever may be said as to the limited terms of reference of these inquiries, in the decision at which I have arrived. We are making progress in both cases. Tomorrow, in connection with the question of the battleship the sub-committee is proposing to hear the statements of well-known protagonists on this question of the battleship and aircraft—protagonists who have special technical knowledge of the questions that are involved. I have undertaken, or rather another investigation has been undertaken of a slightly different character. It is an investigation

that interests hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, for I have been asked many questions about it both in the House and outside. It is a committee to consider the all-important question of food in war time, and every one will recognise that the moment you begin to speak of food you ate involved in questions of transport, of storage, of distribution and ultimately of production of home-grown supplies.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: And purchasing power.

Sir T. INSKIP: I was not attempting to give a complete list of the questions involved; I was merely intending to suggest some of them, to show over how wide a range the Committee must extend their deliberations. A wealth of detail has already been collected on these questions. A great deal of it has been put in order, and we are in a position, or hone to be in a position soon, when further details have been collected, to formulate the issue with a view to decision, and I think I may assure the Committee that in the terms of reference to the committee of inquiry all aspects of food supply in war will come under consideration. I am also happy to say that I have every reason to believe that every concern or firm that is interested in the storage of food in its various forms will co-operate with the committee in supplying information and devising proper plans, if an emergency should unhappily ever occur, and in those concerns and firms I include the Co-operative movement, as I see the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) in the House.
There is one sub-committee which has been set up and which I mention for the purpose of informing hon. Members that Sir William Beveridge has been good enough, in spite of his other occupations, to assume the chairmanship. It is a subcommittee to make the necessary arrangements for the food supply of the civil population in time of war; and all those who remember the circumstances of the Great War will realise how competent a chairman Sir William Beveridge will be to give guidance upon this question. There are some other perhaps less prominent but none the less valuable or important issues affecting more than one department which have engaged my attention, and are likely to do so—the


protection of our merchant shipping, the development of anti-aircraft defence and the passive measures for the defence of the civil population. That is a question which is particularly under the consideration of the Home Office, but naturally it will be my duty to keep in touch with the measures that are proposed from time to time.
Although these are all important inquiries—most important inquiries—I myself should be inclined, after my brief experience, to attach even greater importance to the contact I have made, and I hope I am not overstating it when I say I have happily made, with the Chiefs of Staff. I cannot but express to the Chiefs of Staff my gratitude for their readiness to confer with one whose walks have been so far outside their profession. I sometimes hear it said that there ought to be a joint General Staff, whatever that may mean. I cannot foresee what may be said, if anything, on that topic, but I would like to say that in my humble judgment responsibility divorced from control is nothing but a sham, and the Chiefs of Staff who meet in conference abandon not a jot or title of their individual responsibility or authority in the services to which they belong, but with the assistance of the joint planning committee, composed of the several directors of plans in the, three departments, they take notice of the world conditions and they frame the strategic conceptions which are necessary for a complete system of defence. The Committee may inquire what part I play in these deliberations, but, as I have said, it was and is one of my duties to preside at the meetings of the Chiefs of Staff sub-committee, and I am ambitious enough to think that I can help them, partly by my advice as to the foreign situation from time to time, partly by guiding their deliberations in useful directions, and partly by keeping the Cabinet in touch with their conclusions.
I do not propose this afternoon, whatever invitations may be addressed to me, to lift the veil of secrecy which necessarily and properly must cover the deliberations which take place. I cannot discuss, and I am sure the Committee would not wish me to discuss, the situations or the combinations with which we may be required to grapple in accordance with our commitments. I can only say that it is a responsibility of the Chiefs

of Staff to consider and advise His Majesty's Government as to the use of the resources which Parliament places at their disposal. I think every one will agree with me when I say that the fact that we are required to be ready for collective action in circumstances which may be quite unforeseen, introduces a new factor in this generation into our defence system. The Italian clash may illustrate this proposition. I imagine that two years ago no one could have foreseen that our relations with so firm and old a friend would be disturbed as they have been. The dispositions that were made with so sure a touch and with such a remarkable anticipation of the course of events entitle, I think I may say, our Service advisers not only to our gratitude for what they have done in the past, but to our confidence for the future. There is only one thing that we have no right to ask the Service advisers to do, and that is to attempt to make bricks without straw.
There is one side of the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence which is of absorbing interest, but I am not going to pretend that I have been long enough in office to become more than generally acquainted with its duties. I refer to the question of scientific research, which is bound to play an increasing part in our defences in all three elements, sea, land and air, but I suppose chiefly in connection with the air. All I say and all I can say is that the services of very eminent scientists are being fully used in the development of our schemes of defence. It is my business to try to quicken the tempo and the application of the results of their research to actual instruments of defence, as well as to extend the range of their researches. This is not an occasion, for the reasons I have mentioned, upon which I can make any useful statement, and it may be that it will never be possible to make anything more than a very general statement, but if there is an opportunity when it is possible I will naturally give in fuller outline this part of the duties of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
I cannot pretend to survey the whole field of the Committee of Imperial Defence organisation. A great deal of it must necessarily be left unsaid, not, let the Committee understand, because it would be impossible for me to have narrated a great deal that would interest


the Committee, but because, as I have said, of the necessarily confidential character of the deliberations and the conclusions reached. There is really no alternative before the Committee, so far as this aspect of my work is concerned, other than the two alternatives, either to trust or distrust the Ministers who, like myself, in the absence of the Prime Minister, from time to time preside over the Committee of Imperial Defence.
I pass to the other side of my duties, and here no reticence need be used and I can give to the Committee, I hope, any information that they desire. I shall attempt to anticipate some questions. which may be raised. The White Paper, already approved by the House, contains the broad plan proposed by the Government. It is a plan of which the first object is to repair the deficiencies in our defences due to the omissions of the last four or five or more years; and, secondly, to create a reserve source of supply available in case of emergency. I need not remind the Committee that if a storm should unhappily beat over our heads we are not very likely to have a long time in which to expand our production. It is vital to be prepared for an output capacity which may be switched on almost literally at 24 hours' notice, and even doubled or trebled, to meet the needs of a war on a modern scale.
I have referred earlier, in passing, to the work of the Supply Board and its committees, covering the whole range of necessary supplies, extending even to foodstuffs and medical stores, ships, gauges and various forms of armaments, all of which are engaging the attention of a sub-committee devoted to that particular question. It will be remembered by the Committee that it was not until 1932, six years after the creation of the Supply Board, that the so-called 10 years rule ceased to be the basis of our defence policy. The 10 years rule, of course, is the assumption that no major war need be envisaged for 10 years. But the activities that might have begun in 1932 began only in the summer of 1934, for reasons connected with the financial crisis of the preceding year and of that year. The effective preparation of the Supply Board machinery began and was doubled and redoubled from that time forth.
In the Debate on the Ministry of Defence (Creation) Bill my right hon.

Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) asked whether any survey of industrial forces had taken place and how this force could best be employed. I am not sure that my right hon. Friend received a definite answer to that inquiry at the time, but at any rate I am endeavouring to give him one now. The answer is that a detailed survey has been made of the material operative and technical resources of the country. They have been examined and tabulated. The Government have had the co-operation of men of very high standing and wide experience, and the result is that we are now ready to take the final step of giving experience of actual production of war material to firms that are at present engaged upon ordinary peace activities.
May I illustrate what has been done by reference to shells and shell components? I select this topic as an illustration because it is obvious to everyone that the production of this special industry falls, of necessity, far short of any war needs; indeed, the output of shells in peacetime may be described as almost negligible except for the current requirements of the Forces. The facts are that whole-time technical officers have been engaged in a personal inspection of suitable engineering firms to see whether they are adaptable to shell production, either by expansion or, in some cases, by balancing of existing plants. Four hundred firms of undoubted capacity and experience have received a detailed inspection, and the same process is continuing in the case of other firms. Five hundred of these other firms have recently received a preparatory examination, with a view to a more elaborate inspection as soon as it can be given.
Full process manuals have been prepared, and are now available, as to the manufacture of shell and shell components. They are ready, and they are kept up to date, and I think I may fairly claim that in this case, as I have mentioned in connection with all war material, we are in a position to enter upon the next and most important stage of putting into operation the plans for producing the material that is w anted. Firms have been classified and allotted to the different departments. Obviously something of that sort is desirable to avoid overlapping and the competition that might


otherwise take place between the Services, and, in fact, an orderly plan has been made. It is true that, so far, it may be described as a paper plan, but it is an essential preliminary to the real work of production. All that plan is in being so far as the survey of industrial resources is concerned.
This brings me to consider a factor in the problem to which I have given, and shall be bound to give, a great deal of attention. In the same Debate to which I have already referred, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham asked if the tools and gauges are ready that will be needed. It is significant that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) raised the same question. I say it is significant because, of course, the right hon. Gentleman has an outstanding and unrivalled experience of the production of munitions. Sir Eric Geddes had already, before the Royal Commission on Armaments in November of last year, elaborated the same matter. He pointed out with great force how indispensable to the production of shells, and, indeed, of different forms of armaments, gauges and machine tools are. There is no doubt that gauges and machine tools are the indispensable link—perhaps one may say the first link—in the chain of production. Their importance has been recognised for many years in the organisation of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and subcommittees have been engaged in considering what could be done. There was no money available for establishing a reserve, and the work of the committees was confined to investigating capacity to produce all these intricate and elaborate weapons and instruments, and research on the improvement of design. I am happy to say that the designs, at any rate, are now all in readiness for nearly all tools and gauges necessary for Service requirements. Here again process manuals have been drawn up, and they are proving invaluable to firms that will be engaging in shell manufacture, so at any rate one stage, and an important stage, of this difficult business has been completed.
The Committee will realise that there are many types of tools and gauges. They are made by a number of firms, though the number is limited. As to gauges, no difficulty arises about inspect-

tion gauges; they are the subject of the attention of the National Physical Laboratory; but what are important are the ordinary gauges, which the contractors sometimes make for themselves, or which sometimes specialist firms make. I wish I had a store at my command. My task would have been a very much easier one if I could have entered upon my duties with such a store. But successive Governments have been responsible for decisions—or, shall I say, for the want of decisions—and there is no reason at all why I should attempt to hide from the Committee the fact that every Government in recent years must bear responsibility for this. I am going to take the Committee into full confidence in this matter. My task would have been very much easier if, having selected the firms for the construction of war material, I had had, when they asked me for the tools and gauges, a reserve of supply or a bulk order from which I could supply all their needs. But that is not possible, and it is no use crying over spilt milk. My task now is to plan the placing and timing of orders so as not to strain the industry that makes them, or cause an undue rise in prices.
I have met representatives of the industries, besides the consultations I have had with the officers of the Departments concerned, and I have the assurance of their help. I have a list of the numbers and types of tools and gauges that are estimated to be required, at any rate for Army purposes. Furnished, as I now am, with this information, I hope within a few days to have a meeting which has been arranged to discuss the actual allocation of the contracts for the full supply of these articles, and the steps which are necessary to hasten production. It may be necessary—and, indeed, I am very much attracted by this proposal, and am not sure whether I have not entertained it rather more strongly than some others—to place what I may call a bulk order, or orders in bulk, and make special arrangements whereby these orders shall be applied to the purposes of the Government, or Government contractors, and given priority over other engagements of the manufacturers. At any rate, I may assure the Committee that I have not overlooked the possibility that some such step as this will be necessary. But at the same time I want the. Committee to understand that, with re-


gard to tools and gauges, there has been every indication from the firms who produce these articles that there will be co-operation with the Government in producing them at the lowest possible price in fairness to the firms themselves and to the Government, and at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: How long?

Sir T. INSKIP: So far as gauges are concerned, if I were able, as I hope to be within a very few days, to place orders for these gauges, I do not think there will be a production of a very substantial quantity under four to five months. The Committee will understand that the construction of gauges and the construction of machine tools go hand in hand; it is no good having the gauges without the machine tools, or the machine tools without the gauges. So far as machine tools are concerned, I am afraid that the process of getting them may even take a little longer than the time which I am informed will be required for the gauges. As I have told the Committee, this is a matter which has engaged a great deal of my attention. It is bound to cause me anxiety. These tool matters may be described as bottle-necks, and I do not know of any bottle-necks which are more necessary or perhaps more difficult to get through when people are as anxious as I am, and as the Committee are, to see this programme of deficiencies completed at the earliest possible moment.
Having reached this point, I think it will now be convenient that I should say something about an important suggestion which has been repeatedly made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, that the Prime Minister should create a skeleton Ministry of Supply at once. Let the Committee examine that proposal for a moment, because anything that comes from my right hon. Friend on this question—he knows that I say this with sincerity—deserves notice and examination. I gather that he contemplates a Minister with far-reaching executive powers, probably backed by statutory enactments. His Minister of Supply—I am taking his words from passages in the OFFICIAL REPORET—would make articles for the Services, he would control the industries that are involved, be would secure deliveries which otherwise could not be obtained. In other words, he would be indistinguish-

able from the Minister of Munitions as we knew him during the Great War. That is where the Government and my right hon. Friend part company, and I want the Committee to face up to the issue, because, as I have said, it is a question upon which the Government have made a decision. The Committee will remember that the Government stated, in paragraph 49 of the White Paper, that:
What we have decided to do is to carry through in a limited period of time measures which will make exceptionally heavy demands upon certain branches of industry and upon certain classes of skilled labour, without impeding the course of normal trade.
My right hon. Friend would take the gigantic stride which would put a great part of our industrial system on a war basis. I am not at the moment presenting the case against this suggestion; my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with it in a passage that most Members of the Committee will remember in the Debate on the Budget proposals on the 23rd April. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping was naturally impressed with the example of thoroughness afforded by Germany. He invited us on that occasion to follow that example. His Majesty's Government up to now have taken a different view. It is conceivable that events might compel His Majesty's Government to arrive at a different decision, but the Committee may be sure that His Majesty's Government are not waiting for events to force this question upon their attention. Naturally, it must engage their attention from day to day, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. But even admitting, as of cow-se we do, that the Government carry a very heavy responsibility when they adhere to their decision not to interrupt the normal course of trade, there is no need for the Government to stand in a white sheet on this occasion. I do not think we can attain to the ideal of no interruption of normal trade, even in connection with the output of machine tools. I am informed—not as the result of any threat of compulsory powers by the Government—I have been informed by a gentleman in this branch of industry, who volunteered the statement, that it might be necessary for them, if the Government would give them an indication, to give a priority to Government orders, which, if they were to


execute their orders in the ordinary course, the Government orders or the orders of the sub-contactors would not receive. Therefore, if you have people in industry who realise that the country's needs must come first and are prepared of their own volition to give them precedence, the normal course of trade will to some extent be interrupted.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In regard to the vital machine tools and gauges, is there now a Government priority on these things?

Sir T. INSKIP: The Government have no powers of compulsory priority.

Earl WINTERTON: Ah!

Sir T. INSKIP: I do not know what my Noble Friend means. I am stating the fact. Re may be of opinion—he will tell us later in the Debate—that the Government should take compulsory powers. That is a question well worth considering, but at the present time the Government have no powers of compelling priority for Government orders or for the orders of Government contractors. I only say that I am giving an indication of the willingness of the manufacturers in this branch of industry to do all that they can to secure practical priority for Government supplies.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not a fact now that a great many industries are suffering from lack of ordinary raw materials—raw materials which to them are manufactured products, because of priority already being given to Government orders?

Sir T. INSKIP: I should not like to admit that that is the case. It may very well be that contractors for supplies are in fact giving Government orders their first consideration, but it would not be accurate to describe that as a priority for Government supplies. It is a question of the particular firm or undertaking ordering their business as they think right, and I have yet to learn that it would be wrong for an industry, even without the exercise of compulsory powers by the Government, to prefer the nation's needs even to the needs of a private customer.
May I now give to the Committee some information about the progress that has been made in connection with the Air

Force? I want to give this illustration partly because it is the best illustration of the progress that has been made, but let the Committee not think I am putting it forward as an illustration to which the other cases should be compared. The expansion of the Air Ministry began first; it began as long ago as 1934, or, rather, the plan for the expansion then began. The Committee will remember that the plan that now holds the field provides for a threefold increase of the Royal Air Force as compared with what it was in 1934. To produce the aircraft, that is to say, the best possible aircraft that British design and skill can provide, to provide the fully trained personnel, and to back them with adequate reserves and equipment for industrial production is an immense task, and I think I may say that the whole country is immensely indebted to the energy and resource of my Noble Friend Lord Swinton, the Secretary of State for Air, and his Department. They have been able to make a, really remarkable achievement.
Recruitment, of course, must come in advance of the provision of the units. I am informed that 1,600 pilots have in fact been taken on in 12 months, and there has been an addition to the service flying training schools and the formation of a nucleus of additional civil flying schools. But what the Committee is interested in at the present moment is the provision of the aircraft for the use of this personnel, and I think that this case of the Air Force affords the Committee a very helpful illustration of the dual problem of getting material for expansion and for the repair of deficiencies and organising so that we can turn over at once, if war should unhappily come to emergency production on a large scale. Until the final stage which the Committee has approved for the expansion of the Air Force, it was thought that the existing aircraft industry would suffice for the national demands. The position of the orders given in these circumstances is not unsatisfactory. I mention that, because there were some warnings given as to the delays that might be expected. The progress of the orders that were given to the existing industry has not been at all unsatisfactory.
What we are really now concerned with is to produce the expansion in the in-


dustry which is necessary to provide the greatly increased numbers of aircraft, to broaden the basis of production so that there may be an available source of supply in the event of war. Steps are being taken, as many hon. Members are aware, to enlist motor firms in this industry with a view to building up reserves of output. They will be asked—they have been asked—to build new premises or extensions at the Government expense. The remuneration which they will receive will take the form of a fee for management, on behalf of the Government, for production, and the premises will, of course, remain the property of the Government. They will be maintained on a care-and-maintenance basis for the purposes of the country, and they will be available for and capable of that swift expansion which I have mentioned more than once this afternoon. By these means we hope that reserve capacity, without any interference with normal trade, can be achieved in connection with the air industry.
I will not trouble the Committee with statements as to the progress that has been made by the Admiralty and the Army. I have referred to the stage which they have reached in connection with shell production, so far as the Admiralty is concerned, which is comparatively simpler than the others, but I can assure the Committee that, subject to this ever-pressing question of the machine tools, the programme for the Navy is not in an unsatisfactory position.
I must say something about prices. The Committee will remember that the Government made a promise that there should be nothing in the nature of profiteering, and that is a matter chat has engaged the attention of all concerned in the various Departments. Profiteering is meant to refer to that additional price which can be extracted because of the increase of demand over supply, and not as a compensation for increased costs, and the plan which the Government have aimed at, and tried to carry out in many of the cases, is to give a contract on the terms that the price will be fixed with reference to a careful costings examination, with an addition of profits not based, I would say, by way of percentage upon output, but profits that will be limited either by

agreement or, in some cases, by arbitration. The Committee will realise that if you are to avoid swiftly rising prices as the result of the great demand which is being made upon industry, some such method as this must be adopted.
The prices that will be given, we hope, will provide a fair reward to industry. Let it be remembered that many of the firms and undertakings upon which we are now dependent have had to maintain themselves through very hard times, and it is not unreasonable that they should receive a fair reward under these circumstances when they are once more in the market. Reference has been made from time to time to extravagant rises in the price of shares in companies dealing with munitions. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already told the House on more than one occasion that it is no part of the Government's duty to superintend activities and operations on the Stock Exchange—[An HON. MEMBER: "What are they doing now?"]—Not in this connection, but it would be a very queer business indeed the stock of which did not show some improvement in the prices of its shares on a prospect of firm orders after many years of low production. Although the Opposition may, and quite rightly will, probe these questions from time to time, examine them, and elicit the true facts, I shall not only not complain of it, but shall welcome it, and I repeat the assurance which the Prime Minister gave to the House some months ago, that the Government are determined to omit no efforts that will prevent the company—that is, the country—being bled in the hour of its necessity.

Mr. COCKS: You said "company."

Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. Member is aware that I am more human than he is and, therefore, apt to err. I turn now to another question that will interest hon. Members opposite, even more than the question of prices. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), in the Debate to which I have referred, asked a number of questions as to what was going to he done with labour. Skilled labour is another question that causes great anxiety, and the hon. Gentleman said that it would be folly not to give consideration to the skilled labour now available in many parts of the country. I agree with him. One of our tasks is to search out the pockets of skilled labour—

Mr. KELLY: We know it.

Sir T. INSKIP: I never grudge hon. Members opposite opportunities for indulging in their humour, and that is undoubtedly another slip on my part, of which they have taken full advantage. I repeat, so that hon. Members opposite may, on second thoughts, understand what I have said, that the Government's duty is to search out the pockets of skilled labour which may be found in many places in the country. There are undoubtedly, here and there, in the places where large undertakings were formerly carried on, groups of men who have strayed into businesses and occupations which they do not prefer to their true avocation, and if by any means we can draw them back into industry, I believe we shall be serving the best interests of the men themselves, and furnishing the country with an invaluable supply of the skill which it needs at the present time.
I have been asked once or twice whether I have taken consultation with the trade unions or the Trades Union Council. I gave an answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping yesterday—I did not give it to him, because he was not able to be present—which set out the position as I would put it before the Committee. The organisations of the different branches of industry are very well equipped to deal with industrial questions. To take the case of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, there is a proper organisation for discussing these questions with the employers, and I believe that discussions are now going on as to a rise in wage rates which has been under consideration for some little time.

Mr. KELLY: For a long time.

Sir T. INSKIP: For a long time. So, in connection with other industries. The point that I want to make is that I should have thought it was, and I still think it is, much more likely to be congenial to hon. Members opposite if the very skilled and experienced machinery that exists in the different branches of industry was left as far as possible to discuss and settle questions between the employers and the workpeople. I have no desire to ask for a blank cheque on behalf of the Government. I recognise to the full that if the Government

should, unhappily, be faced with the alternative of diluting labour or some elaborate scheme of transfer of labour, of course, there would have to be consultation with the bodies that include all the various craft unions, but I believe the course that I have deliberately taken up to the present time of leaving industry on both sides to make its own arrangements is most conducive to peace in industry and to the avoidance of rise in prices. I do not grudge in the least a proper appreciation in an increase of wages of the employés. Indeed, what I have said about the firms applies equally to the men. The men have been, down on the bedrock of wages, and if it is proper that an increase should be given, the employers' and the mens' organisations are competent to settle such questions. Therefore, in spite of what the right hon. Member for Epping has indicated as being his opinion, more than once, I have decided, rightly or wrongly, to leave this industrial machinery to be worked as smoothly and as efficiently as I believe it can be by them.
The last thing that I have to say is a few words about the Special Areas. The Committee will remember that in connection with the White Paper a statement was made that special considerations would be given, other things being equal, to the Special Areas. I have kept in communication with the three Departments and I have an assurance as to the efforts that are being made in each Department to give their orders to the places where they will be most welcome. I will not trouble the Committee with the details, but I will go into them if necessary later in the Debate. There is no doubt that in this question of supply and the making up of deficiencies we are engaged as a nation upon a great enterprise. We are trying to achieve a successful result without undue disturbance of our trade, both home and foreign. Everybody will agree as to the importance of maintaining our foreign trade, so carefully and exhaustingly sought in the years of depression. We are trying in the short space of three or four years to overtake the accumulated deficiencies of many years. I am grateful for the indulgence of the Committee. I am increasingly aware that any success that may attend any help that I may give in this connection will be due to the efforts of others —to the men and perhaps the women who may possibly be brought into this ex-


pansion programme, to the owners of industrial undertakings and the business men who are giving me their co-operation, and not least shall I owe a great deal to the help that I have already received by suggestion and kindly criticism from hon. and right hon. Members of this House. All that I can say is that if we can succeed in this great enterprise, if we can accomplish that to which we have set our hands, it will be a great achievement, and I believe that it can be done.

4.50 p.m.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I beg to move, "That sub-head BB (Salary of Minister for Co-ordination of Defence) be reduced by £100."
Let me, in the first place, offer to the right hon. Gentleman my congratulations on the introduction of the first Estimates of the Ministry for the Co-ordination of Defence. This Ministry is in a special sense the creation of Parliament. Other Ministries have been brought into being under the pressure of events and on the initiative of Governments, but this new Ministry is the result of urgent demands from all quarters in both Houses of Parliament, from the Ministerial benches as well as the Socialist and Liberal benches, that the problems of defence should in future be considered as a whole, that there should be unity of doctrine in regard to all the problems of defence, naval, military, air, transport and supply; unity of plan and unity of direction, in place of the old system of Departmental autonomy and strife. For a long time this demand was strenuously resisted. We were told to trust to the Committee of Imperial Defence, but at last the Government yielded. How far they have yielded is yet to be fully disclosed, and certainly some of the passages of the right hon. Gentleman's speech were a little disquieting. To some extent, however, the Government have yielded to the pressure, and the result is the creation of the Ministry the first Estimates of which we are discussing today.
The first practical question that arises out of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is whether the Government have so designed the Ministry and equipped it with such powers as to enable it to carry out the intentions of Parliament. Has the Minister acquired the powers which

Parliament desired him to possess? The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us much about his Ministry. What is his personal staff? Is he advised directly, as we hoped he would be, by officers drawn from the Imperial Defence College? What are his relations with the Chiefs of Staff Committee? Before I refer to what my right hon. Friend said on this last point, I would remind the Committee that when the Debate took place on the Government's White Paper on Defence I drew attention to a discrepancy between a statement in the White Paper, that the new Minister would not normally preside over the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and an announcement by the Secretary of State for Air in another place that the Minister would be the chairman of the Committee, not necessarily, he said, presiding over every meeting, but working to them the whole time. Lord Milne, who has had great experience as chief of the Imperial General Staff for many years, declared in a speech in another place that he attached immense importance to this point, and he added that the Minister should take the chair at all the meetings of the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
I had hoped that the Minister would be able to make it clear in the Debate to-day that he was firmly in the saddle as the regular and effective chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, but, while he described himself quite clearly as the chairman of the Supply Committee, he only said that he was keeping in touch with the Chiefs of Staff Committee. "Keeping in touch" were the words that I took down, and occasionally presiding at their meetings. I had hoped that he would be in a much stronger position than that. His speech in introducing his Estimates to-day displayed all those qualities which we are accustomed to expect from him—coolness, poise, clarity of statement, and sure mastery of his subject, qualities which have earned him the confidence and respect of his colleagues in all parts of the House, but I looked in vain for convincing evidence that the right hon. Gentleman, possessed of such powers as have been assigned to him, was finding himself able to exert the pressure necessary to fuse the strategic doctrine of each of the three Services into one combined doctrine: one strategic whole.
The appointment of the right hon. Gentleman was one example of the process which we have begun to regard as characteristic of this Government's policy. He was appointed after the Government's plan had been framed and published. It was one of the instances of that process which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has described with so much picturesque elaboration as putting the cart before the horse. It was not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon whether he has yet managed to transfer himself to a firmer and more convenient, if perhaps more conventional, position, between the shafts of the cart. He referred to some of the main issues of defence policy, but he left a great many without mention. He excused himself on account of the confidential character of the deliberations that are held and the conclusions that are reached, and said that this Committee had no alternative to trusting the Minister and the heads of the Defence Services. I hope that the Minister will unseal his lips in future, and perhaps before we have finished this Debate.
Those were not the terms in which Lord Haldane and the right hon. Member for. Epping, when they were at the head of the two great Defence Services before the War, were wont to address the House. I did not hear the speeches but I have read them, and they used to give the House clear indications of the principles upon which defence policy was based, the dangers that our Defence Forces were designed to meet and the nature of the organisations which the Government were putting up. I shall refer to some of those speeches again before I sit down.
In the meantime, I would press the Government for more information as to the dangers which they are asking this Committee and the country to face. Very few hon. Members will deny that the dangers exist. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said, in the opening passages of his speech, that there is common ground there between hon. Members in all parts of the House. I start from that common ground. We are not blind, and we do not seek to blind others, to the disquieting features of the international situation. We have seen the fate of Abyssinia. We are beginning to sense vaguely the policy of the Italian

dictatorship. We know the warlike doctrine it inculcates in its citizens and in its children, and we see the powerful and threatening strategical position which it has acquired—I would say partly through the weakness of the present Government—in the Near East. Looking further afield, there is the power and expansionist policy of the military party in Japan. Coming nearer home we see what the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Dalton), in his powerful speech in the Debate on foreign affairs a fortnight ago, described as the rapid, remorseless and menacing process of rearmament in Germany. What are the true proportions of these dangers? In the absence of any clear statement from the Government it is only right and natural that private Members of the House and publicists outside, with sources of information far inferior to those at the disposal of the Government, should seek to make and publish estimates of their own.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping has been a, most active and most consistent investigator of German rearmament, and the fact that in one controversy of immense importance, that over the air strength of Germany, he was proved right and the Government was proved wrong has given great weight to any views that he expresses. In a Debate about four weeks ago he gave in considerable detail the grounds for his assertion that the German Government had spent, in the single year 1935, a sum of £800,000,000 on armaments. On the other hand, other careful and well informed observers derided those estimates of German rearmament. Professor Bone, for example, in an article in this month's "Nineteenth Century" analyses the statistics of German agricultural and industrial production in recent years and also the figures of retained imports of nickel, chrome and tungsten ores and the figures of the consumption in Germany of non-ferrous metals. He compares these figures with similar figures for this country and draws the deduction that the figures of the right hon. Gentleman are "grossly exaggerated and unworthy of credence." Here are two opposing views held by well-informed observers, each supported by pertinent and impressive statistics. The right hon. Gentleman has challenged the Government to deny the accuracy of his figures and has claimed that unless the


Government is willing to deny their accuracy, unless it is willing to contradict them specifically and can show reasons why they are wrong, his statement might be allowed to stand and might be taken into the general currency of thought on this topic. The Government has ignored his challenge. Perhaps they reflected that even if the hon. Gentleman's figures are exaggerated, they would tend to mobilise public opinion in support of their policy—so why should they refute them? Yet surely it would be wiser for them to seek the solid support of fully instructed opinion rather than rely upon a public opinion which is merely vaguely alarmed. On the one hand, if Professor Bone's statistics or deductions are wrong, let the mistakes and the fallacies in them be authoritatively exposed. Do not let public opinion be lulled into a false sense of security. But if the right hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong, do not let a dangerous atmosphere of vague fear and menace be created.
Fear and suspicion, the gradual growth of the feeling that some other nation is an implacable enemy and that war is inevitable—these are among the root causes of war. These are the feelings which scaremongers in the sensational Press and the hirelings of the armaments interest are alert to exploit. "I know that the nation will not fail anyone who tells it the truth," said the Minister for Coordination of Defence last week. So let me urge them to respond to the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping and tell us frankly and dispassionately the truth as they know it about German re-armament 'and the true proportions of the danger in Europe, in the Far East and the Near East, against which their defence plans are designed to protect us.
The next question that I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is, What has happened to all the money, nearly £2,000,000,000, that we have spent on armaments since the War? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are fond of warning us on this side against the loose employment of phrases like "collective security," and they are, of course, entitled to demand definitions of such phrases. So we are entitled to demand definitions of such phrases as "unilateral

disarmament," "filling the gaps," "supply the deficiencies," from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who use them. In the last 10 years only there has been an expenditure of more than £1,000,000,000 on British armaments. That may be sufficient or it may be insufficient, but it cannot accurately be described as unilateral disarmament. In a recent Debate I was taken to task by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the use of the word "squandered" in connection with this expenditure. It is a strong word, but I am prepared to defend its use.
What has happened to our money that has been spent in the last 10 years? In the first place, five-sixths of it has been spent on the old established Services, the Navy and the Army, and in spite of repeated warnings by back bench Members of all parties—it was on this question that I made my first speech in this House 13 years ago on the Report stage of the Air Estimates—only a sixth of this money has been spent on that Service which is now clearly shown to be the most vital of all three, the Air Service. About half of it, £550,000,000, has been spent upon the Navy, yet we were told in the Government's White Paper last year that the Navy in the condition in which it was in March of last year was unfit either to defend our vital interests or to cooperate in any system of collective security. This is in spite of the fact that the personnel of the Navy has declined by a third and its tonnage by a half and although, as the May Committee reported in. 1931, the Admiralty has, in addition to the money it has received from this House, been able to draw from year to year an old war stock to the extent of £1,000,000 to £1,500,000 a year. Yet we are told that this money was insufficient to provide the equipment and the reserves of war material necessary to maintain its efficiency.
In the Debate on the Navy Estimates this year I instituted a comparison between the naval expenditure and its results for the five years before the War and for the past five years. The Noble Lord who was in charge of the Navy Estimates gave me a very courteous but by no means convincing reply. My criticism and the Noble Lord's reply are on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT and


I do not want to weary the Committee by reviving the controversy on the same lines, but his figures suggest a fresh comparison. He declared that the provision proposed this year for effective services only, a sum of £60,000,000, was equivalent at pre-War rates and prices to a provision of £40,000,000. In other words, he deducted a third, and for the purposes of my argument this afternoon I am prepared to accept that proportion. Add to that £60,000,000 the amount of the Supplementary Estimate which has now been presented and we reach a total of over £70,000,000 on effective services for the Navy in the present year. Deduct a third and we have a figure of £47,000,000, or just £1,000,000 less than the Estimate for effective naval services for the year 1914–15. Yet in that year we had 68 capital ships and 14 building, as against 15 capital ships now and two building, the construction of which is to be begun at the very end of the financial year. We had then 110 cruisers and 17 building as against 54 and 17 building this year. Our tonnage is only half what it was then and the Navy then was complete in its personnel, its war material and its necessary reserves. So it is not true that we have been disarming during the last 10 years. We have been spending vast sums on our defence forces and we have not been getting value for it, and it seems clear that the case for an inquiry into the expenditure on the defence services is overwhelming. I pressed for it before and I was glad that the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) was pressing for it at Question Time yesterday. I again urge the Government to grant this inquiry.
So much for our past expenditure. Now as to the future. In the last week before the General Election the Prime Minister said:
Where democracy is up against the truth it can form its own judgment, and I have never known the British democracy, where it is up against the truth, give a wrong judgment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1935; col. 152, Vol. 305.]
A few days later he told a great public meeting at the Guildhall what he, no doubt, then believed was the truth of the armament situation. He said:
Do not fear or misunderstand the Government when the Government say they are looking to our defences. I give

you my word that there will be no great armaments.
Yet in opening the Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that he was contemplating the possibility that armament expenditure, after rising to a peak, would sink to a permanent level which in all likelihood would substantially exceed the £158,000,000 provided for in the original Estimates of this year, a prospect which moved the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping to declare that such a level would be so intolerably high that there would have to be either a melting of hearts and a joining of hands or an explosion and a catastrophe the course of which no imagination could measure. We have travelled a long way since the Prime Minister gave his word to the electors at the Guildhall during the General Election that there would be no great armaments. The new plans are obviously on a scale far greater than was indicated to the electors at the General Election and we ought to be told now what that scale is and what the cost will be. Either by the procedure of a Select Committee or in some other way this House ought to obtain full information of the Government's plans and scrutinise searchingly the expenditure on defence. The Government have rightly claimed that they must be free to expand or contract their programme as the situation deteriorates or improves. We are not seeking to tie them to a particular figure, and we hope the figure that they give will prove to be one which they need never reach. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said only last night:
We have staked out a programme.
And again:
We have a definite programme in front of us.
Let us, at any rate, know what will be the cost of completing that programme for which the Estimates are before the House this year.
We ought also to be told what will be the role assigned to each Service in the Government's plans, and by what standards the requirements of these Services will be measured. As I was saying just now, before the War, this was the kind of information which was given to the House of Commons by Lord Haldane, who was then Secretary of State for War, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who was then First Lord of the Admiralty.
They made clear statements of the principles upon which our Defence system was based and the standards of strength accepted for each Service and the role assigned to the Navy and the Army respectively. For example, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping in March, 1912, precisely stated that "the actual standard of new construction which the Admiralty has in fact followed during recent years has been to develop a 60 per cent, superiority over the German Navy on the basis of the existing Fleet lay"; and he proceeded to explain in detail, through each category of ships, the application of that standard. The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot lift the veil of secrecy which covers the dangers with which we are faced.

Sir T. INSKIP: No, I did not say that. I said that I could not lift the veil of secrecy which covered the deliberations. I said nothing about covering the dangers.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that. I hope that if that is so, he will give us the information for which I am asking and a clear statement on the principles of action upon which he is proceeding to meet those dangers. He said that we must not ask him and the Defence Department to make bricks without straw. No, but if we are providing the straw, we are entitled to see the plans of the houses which our bricks are going to be used to build.
The nearest approach to any such exposition which the Government have so far vouchsafed us is in regard to the Air Force. There the Government's formula, announced by the Prime Minister about 18 months ago, was parity with any Power within striking distance of our shores. I have criticised that formula but it was better than nothing. It at any rate gave us some indication of what the Government thought and a yardstick by which to measure their achievements. The right hon. Gentleman has told us a little more about their achievements. He said that they had 1,600 new pilots and that they had motor firms now building premises in order to expand rapidly, making a reserve capacity for expansion in time of emergency. I would ask further, whether the Government have yet attained that standard of parity which

they said was to be the standard to which the Air Force was to be brought, and, if not, when do they expect to attain it?
So in regard to the Navy, we ought to have a clear statement of policy like that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping gave to the House before the War. The only definite standard of which we have been told is parity with the United States of America; yet it is generally agreed that it does not in the least matter to us or to any of the other peace-loving nations of the world how big the United States Navy really is. The larger their fleet the more secure the British people and the other peace-loving nations of the world will feel. So that for practical purposes the formula of parity with the United States of America is meaningless. What then is our present standard of naval strength?
And here let me say a few words on two points affecting the Navy. We on these benches have backed the Government in the measures which they have taken to put the Fleet into a state of full preparedness and efficiency to carry out the policy of the League of Nations in the Mediterranean, and also in their proposals to strengthen the Navy—with one exception. We have refused to be committed to the construction of battleships before the inquiry, to which the Minister referred in his speech this afternoon, has been completed. The case against the construction of battleships argued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) has not been answered, and is, in my belief, unanswerable; but this afternoon I want to confine myself to a comparatively narrow point. Speaking in the Debate on the Supplementary Naval Estimates, the Minister for toe Co-ordination of Defence read out the terms of reference to this committee of inquiry. He said they were as follows:
To consider the experiments that have taken place or are proposed in connection with the defence against aircraft, and the vulnerability from the air of capital ships." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1936; col. 1413, Vol. 311.]
That is not the inquiry which was promised us by the Noble Lord who was. in charge of the Naval Estimates when


we were discussing these Estimates. The undertaking which he gave was in these words:
I really want people to feel confident about battleships, to feel that they are necessary. I do not want people to go about feeling that their money has been wasted on battleships when it ought to be used for something else. We are perfectly prepared to take any steps to make people perfectly convinced that the policy of the Government is right.…
We have got our case ready and we would really like the opportunity of the critics of battleships coining out in the open… Their views must be based on definite experience, and I hope that they will be open to cross questioning by the naval authorities in the same way as the naval authorities have been cross-questioned by the opponents of battleships. Therefore, while I feel perfectly clear that my right hon. Friend will not expect me to pledge myself to the exact method of inquiry to be adopted, I can assure him that every step will be taken to ensure that all these points can be thrashed out as to the merit or otherwise of our battleship replacement programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1936; cols. 117–8, Vol. 310.]
That is a very different undertaking. That undertaking has not been fulfilled by the terms of reference which the Minister has given to this House. Why has there been this effort to narrow the scope of the inquiry? Will the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence or whoever speaks at the end of this Debate on his behalf, give us a pledge—and I put this to the Minister quite definitely—that the scope of the inquiry will be as described by the Noble Lord who was in charge of the Naval Estimates, and that the inquiry will be carried out as he indicated to the House.
The other point I want to mention in connection with the Navy is this: The lesson of the last War was that the tendency had been to concentrate too much attention upon the big ship to the exclusion of the vital importance of smaller craft. No one is likely to forget the importance of the part played by the fishing fleet in the last War. Lord Balfour said that they were "the shield and buckler of the Allied cause," and Lord Jellicoe said," The Navy saved Britain, but the fishermen saved the Navy. "Now the fishing industry is threatened with collapse. There is more unemployment in the fishing towns and villages on the North East coast of Scotland than in any other part of the country.—[An HON. MEMBER: "And in

Grimsby."] An hon. Member behind me says "And in Grimsby." An invaluable reservoir of naval recruitment is drying up at the source and the boats which were the Navy's shield in the last War are now being laid up. There is urgent need on the ground of naval defence for the Government to come to the rescue of this hard-pressed industry. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that he will consider favourably the proposals which have been made to him that those fishermen who are ready to hold themselves and their boats at the disposal of the Government in the event of war should receive a retaining fee, and that the Government will press actively on with other measures for the salvation of the fishing industry, whose welfare should be the special pre-occupation of the Admiralty.
There remains the Army. In the Debate on the White Paper in March, I asked what role was to be assigned to the Army in the Government's scheme of defence. I asked whether it was to be equipped for participation in land warfare on the Continent of Europe, or was it to be recognised that our contribution to pooled security could best be made at sea and in the air, where we share common risks with our fellow members of the League, and where our help could be made most promptly available. The Home Secretary, who replied for the Government, said:
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether… the Army would be called upon to go abroad, but that is not a question to which anybody could give an answer here and now. Our duty in that respect at present is to see that we have a force which is capable, in case of need, of going abroad and that is not of course limited to one particular expedition abroad but applies to emergencies which may arise in any part of the world.
I then pressed the point as to whether he meant that the Army would be organised to take part in a Continental war, or whether it would be merely an expeditionary force available to go to other parts of the world and organised more or less on its present basis, to which he replied:
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself will be the first to see that, while it. is quite right that we should seek to define generally the purpose of the Army, it is impossible for any man, in advance, to determine the method by which the Army shall be used."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1936; cols. 1996–7, Vol. 309.]


That is not the reply which the House of Commons received from Lord Haldane before the War. It is meaningless, as my hon. Friend above the Gangway says. Before the War the House of Commons was told precisely the principles on which the Army was to be organised and what its role was to be, the organisation of the Expeditionary Force, with its 160,000 men and six divisions, and of the Territorial Force, and how its strength had been calculated, and exactly what role had been assigned to it in our scheme of Imperial defence. I believe that this is the crucial issue. To organise a mechanised expeditionary force capable of taking part in Continental warfare would involve colossal expenditure, and although the Prime Minister has pledged the Government against the adoption of conscription, I find it impossible to believe that such an army could be raised and kept in the field without conscription. Already it is being suggested that unless the flow of recruits is increased, we may have to resort to conscription. For my part, I should regard the acceptance of conscription as the defeat of those ideals of peace and freedom which I am prepared to support the Government in defending against military aggression from abroad, but which I am equally resolved to defend against the militarists at home. An army organised for Continental warfare would be on a basis wholly different from that required for garrison duty throughout the Empire, or for Colonial service or for service in India. Again I ask the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, which basis do the Government intend to adopt?
If we look at the problem from the standpoint adopted in the Government White Paper of collective security under the League of Nations, surely it is clear that the States members of the League possess an overwhelming superiority over those outside the League in military strength on land? I would ask the Committee to take the worst assumption, and one which would be quite unwarrantable, except for the purpose of weighting the scales to the utmost against my own argument. Count in not only Italy, but also Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria on the side of Germany and Japan in a great struggle against the League. They would have 1,400,000 men in the first line to the

2,500,000 men of the six chief League Powers, France, Belgium, Poland, Rumania, Russia and Jugoslavia, and 6,000 aeroplanes to the 6,350 of the League Powers. It is in the air and not on the land that our contribution to collective security would be most required, and because we share to the full the risks in the air of our fellow members of the League on account of the exposure of our great centres of population, our communications and our centres of industry, to air attack, it is in the air as well as on the sea that we ought to make our contribution, to collective security. If the Government share those views let them say so, but, if not, let us at least know what their conception is of the role of the British Army. For my part I suggest that its contribution to collective security should be made in continents where its present organisation is better adapted to the requirements of war than that of mechanised armies organised on the Continental scale; and that the Territorial Force should once more be constituted on the basis of service for home defence only, so that it could revert to its original role of being responsible for the defence of these shores in the absence of the regular Army.
I will leave other hon. Members to deal with other vital aspects of the defence problem—industrial organisation, supply, and the measures to be taken in the event of air attack on London and on our docks and communications by sea, and also with the vital question of our food supplies. I will only say this on the question of industrial organisation and supplies, that I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman reveal how little has been done to prepare in, such ways as by the provision of precision tools and gauges. He said that successive Governments have neglected these issues. I remember a speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) about three years ago bringing to the attention of this Government the vital importance of these issues, and yet it would appear from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to-day that no attention was paid to the speech of the right hoe. Member for Caernarvon Boroughs and that nothing in fact was done. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulty of getting these supplies of tools and gauges, and he dealt with the suggestion that there should be a Minister of Supply with


greater powers of obtaining these necessary articles. It is notorious that it is getting increasingly difficult for private industry to get delivery of these tools and gauges, and that private industry is being hampered in this way. I am told that deliveries can be obtained for certain gauges and tools more rapidly from Germany, in spite of the rearmament which is going on there, and from America; and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should consider lowering the tariffs against the importation of these tools and gauges which are required by industry and by the Government for the purposes of defence.
Finally, I want to ask for information on two important aspects of the external co-ordination of defence. What measures are being taken to bring about an effective co-ordination of defence so far as the different countries of the Empire are concerned? The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to this in the course of his speech. In the Navy Debate I pointed out that there was small sign of effective co-operation between Imperial Governments in matters of defence. Are the Dominion Governments being fully consulted? Have they shared in the preparation of the Government's defence plans? Are they prepared to co-operate, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what their part is going to be?
I return to the Government's White Paper, and its reference to collective security. What measures are being taken to create collective security? It is not hon. Members on this side who are to be blamed for misusing collective security as a catch phrase. It is used in the Government's White Paper. We want to know what the Government are doing to make it a reality. Unfortunately, while the Government's White Paper contains these vague references to collective security, it cites recent increases in the armaments of other members of the League, like France, Belgium and Russia, along with those of Germany and Japan, as necessitating increases in British armaments. If collective security means anything real to the Government, the armaments of loyal members of the League should be regarded as complementary to and not competitive with our own. We have supported, and shall continue to support, the Government in any increase of armaments the case for which we think is clearly proved, but

the piling up of these great armaments gives us no sense of security. Real security lies only in removing the causes of war and particularly the economic causes, which destroy overseas trade, block migration and create unemployment, impoverishment and discontent all over the world. The best form of national defence would be a tenacious and consistent pursuit of a foreign and economic policy in accordance with the Liberal traditions of this country, and in firm loyalty to the ideals of the League of Nations.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: We have awaited with interest the first speech of the right hon. Gentleman in his position as Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and to hear him give an account of his stewardship. Frankly I cannot say that I have been disappointed in his speech, because I never expected very much. Not because the right hon. Gentleman is the right hon. Gentleman, but because we have not been put in a position to expect very much. I was struck by a phrase he used, which seemed to me to be exactly applicable to his own position—" responsibility divorced from authority is a sham." It is responsibility without authority that has been given to the right hon. Gentleman, and the plans of the Government for the coordination of defence are, in fact, a sham. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a gloomy speech, a speech in which he appeared to envisage some catastrophe three or four years ahead. I notice, constantly reiterated in the speeches of Ministers, this period of three or four years ahead. They say that "we have three or four years to do it in." I do not know what they are anticipating at the end of that time. I do not believe that anybody anticipates that if we continue arming vigorously for three or four years we shall then suddenly have a heavy fall in expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did suggest something of that kind, but the speeches of nearly every Minister suggests that after three or four years we shall have the deluge—another war.
What I found lacking in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is what I have found lacking in every speech I hear from Members of the Government on the subject of defence, and that is a


total lack of unity of strategic outlook. What we get is a number of statements, a number of plans, put forward by the three Ministers but all totally uncoordinated. The right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon started with a fallacy. He talked all the time of these proposals as making up deficiencies. The assumption is that all the time there is an ideal present in the mind of somebody for the defence of this country properly co-ordinated between the three arms, but that owing to a variety of causes that ideal has never been reached; that now they are going to make up deficiencies and that when they have done that we shall have a co-ordinated structure of defence. That is entirely untrue. There is every indication that the Government have no co-ordinated plan of defence and the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) was perfectly right in saying that it is a ridiculous thing for Ministers to come here with a bush-hush policy, saying, "Trust us, but do not inquire too far." The picture I get of the Government is of a Government which is as incoherent in its defence plans as it is in its foreign policy, and all that it is doing at the present tine is to increase armaments in a panic. What, in fact, it is doing is merely to multiply anachronisms.
We are being asked to pay huge sums of money for security and safety, but we never get the slightest suggestion as to how safety is to be attained. We have never had a clear statement on this issue, because we have never had a statement on defence as a whole. The first question I should like to ask is this: Are there really any co-ordinated plans at all for defence? The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that there were. He told us that when the critical situation arose in the Mediterranean, owing to the imposition of sanctions, there was wonderful co-operation between the Services, everything was done all right. I am very glad to hear it, but if that was so we can take it that it was not any fear of Italy which prevented the Government from carrying out the policy to which it had set its hand, of imposing really effective sanctions on Italy. We gather that there was no question of running away, no question of fear, everything had been foreseen, and that there were co-ordinated plans for the Navy, Air

Force and Army, so that in case anything should happen they were already to go to the Mediterranean—nothing improvised, they knew exactly what they were doing.
It is gratifying, but I am bound to say it is the first time we have heard it. It points to the question, why the Government did not carry out the policy they laid down, and which did so much to win them the last General Election. Our contention has always been that we cannot trust the Government's foreign policy. When they ask for armaments we cannot trust them with the use of these armaments, or in the efficiency of the armaments. I have not the slightest desire to turn the Debate into a foreign affairs debate, as we have to deal mainly with the question as to whether the defence plans are being properly coordinated.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be in a position at the end of this Debate to give some outline of the position of this country relative to the system of collective security. I was struck by one remark which he made in that connection. He said that we have various responsibilities and that we have an increased liability from collective security. What did he mean by that? Did he mean that if we were to adopt the policy of Lord Beaverbrook we should then have far greater security and a far smaller liability, and be able to reduce our armaments? Do I understand that it is owing to the responsibilities of collective security that we are so afraid of Signor Mussolini? Is it the responsibilities of collective security that make us hand over one sea after another to some particular dictator? That seems to me to be a rather curious conception. I could understand it coming from some hon. Members who sit on the benches below the Gangway, but it strikes me as rather curious coming from the Minister who is to co-ordinate the Defences of a Government which is pledged to collective security and which has based its armaments policy on collective security.
Surely if collective security means anything, it means that with any increased liability there must also he increased security for us. I would like the right hon. Gentleman when he replies to tell


us what steps have been taken to make collective security a reality. We have heard of conversations between particular Powers. Are there any conversations to make collective security a reality? We are told that collective security is merely a phrase, and we have been attacked on that basis; but it is a phrase which the Government put up and have always put up. They are protagonists of collective security, and we want to know whether it really means anything effective. I would like now to ask that we should be given a little more information.
I am sure, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness said, that in a Debate of this sort we should have had a far clearer exposition in pre-war days. I am sure we should have had a clearer conception of what would be the role of the Army, the Navy or the Air Force in any particular contingencies that might arise. I should like to have a good deal more information, particularly with regard to the Navy. We have had speeches from the present First Lord of the Admiralty which are really mere echoes of a kind of pre-war reverence for the quarterdeck, a saluting of the spirit of the mast, and after carefully reading those speeches again, I do not know what the First Lord of the Admiralty really considers the position of the Navy to be. I have also looked at the speeches made in pre-war days by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, and I know exactly what was meant, what was conceived and what he thought of the British Navy in a world which was at that time very largely a world of two-dimensional war. I do not get any conception at all from the spokesmen of the Admiralty as to what they conceive to be the role of the Fleet under conditions of three-dimensional war. I would like to ask whether at the present time the bases of our Fleet are considered in the same way as in pre-war days. Do we still consider Malta and Gibraltar as secure resting-places for our Fleet, or are they isolated spots very open to air attack in modern warfare? I understand that the Fleet did not stay long at Malta during the summer when it was threatened. If those particular bases are open to danger, I want to know when the Admiralty found it out. It has been rightly pointed out that during all

these years we have been spending a great many millions of pounds on our Forces. We want to know whether these inherited systems of security have been revised in the light of modern conditions.
That brings me to the next point, and here also I would like to have some explanations. It seems to me that we are trying to re-create a 1914 Fleet for the conditions of 1936, exactly as we have very largely a 1914 Territorial Army for which the Secretary of State for War has been actively recruiting. I want to know exactly where 1914 comes in, in 1936. We spend £1,000,000 a year on cavalry, and I want to know what part cavalry has in the Defence Forces in modern warfare. I think we all want to know a great deal more about the role of the battleship. What protection will it give to this country? After all, we are considering not the Estimates of one year or the Estimates even of the right hon. Gentleman's salary to-day, but an enormous programme which is to go on for three or four years. The battleship programme is not one that can be finished in a short time. It will commit us to enormous expenditure. We know—and it is the profession of the Government—that the matter is still one on which there is to be discussion, and it seems astounding that in all these years the matter has not been carried much further than it has. When I am told that I must trust the expert, I say that everything I read leads me to mistrust the expert. I do not think there is anything quite so painful as reading the accounts of great experts of war afterwards. I am afraid that all the speeches of the Secretary of State for War for the purchase of recruiting for the modern Army will not counter his story of the late Lord Haig and the whole story of the War as it comes out now. Therefore, although I do not profess to be an expert, I am not prepared to bow down and say, "Because the Lords of the Admiralty say this, let everybody else be dumb." The right hon. Gentleman rather gave us that impression. There was a kind of hush-hush over his speech—trust the Ministers. Frankly, I do not trust them.
We have asked again and again what is the position in regard to the Air Force, and once more we have had no clear doctrine laid down. I would ask particularly what is the Government's atti-


tude towards the efforts that I understand are again being made—I do not know how many times they have been made already—to hand over part of the Air Force to the Navy. That attack comes up regularly. It is one of those forms of warfare rather like the warfare on the North-West Frontier. We know that the warfare at the back of the lines between Ministers is always one of the great features of modern warfare. Occasionally, there may be peace between them, but this war between the Departments of these two Services is always apt to break out. Frankly I think that the carving up of the Air Force would not add to its efficiency, and to my mind if there is to be any carving up and handing over, the Navy should be handed over to the Air Force and not the Air Force to the Navy, because the Air Force is the dominant Force today. H one considers the dangers of any war at all, the vital spot is this country and the vital danger comes from the air.
I was not at all satisfied by what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the safety of this country. It is very satisfactory to know that there are committees working, but he did not give us a great deal of technical detail, and, after all, that is not his province; but I do not think anyone is satisfied that there is a really vigorous effort being made to protect this country or, indeed, that there is real co-ordination between the Departments on protection. I must say that one rather curious point which struck me about the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that throughout his remarks his Ministerial colleagues were never once referred to. Is the co-ordination not a high-level bridge, but a bridge somewhere half-way down, because there was no reference in the right hon. Gentleman's speech to the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for War? The nearest approach to co-ordination seemed to be when the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Chiefs of Staff Committee, I must confess that I am disturbed by that attitude.

Sir T. INSKIP: The right hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in saying that I made no reference to the right hon. Gentlemen. I paid a tribute to Lord Swinton and mentioned him specifically by name.

Mr. ATTLEE: I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to Lord Swinton, but that was in a different part of his speech. So far as the part of his speech dealing with his co-ordination activities is concerned, my statement is correct, although I am willing to admit that it was merely an oversight. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness when he said, with regard to the role of the Army, that we have to get an army that is suitable for one purpose. I believe it is impossible to get an army that is suitable for four totally different purposes and for which it has to be totally differently equipped. The impression the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War gave me was that he is trying to get an all-weather Army which will be useful in no particular weather, an Army that is to be neither suitable for modern Continental mechanised warfare nor suitable for 1914. The Territorial Army remains in 1914, parts of the Army have got as far as 1936 and others are halting at various stages on the road.
I was not any more satisfied with the right hon. Gentlemen's treatment of the question of the prevention of profiteering. He left out one important thing, in that he did not tell us what was the Government's idea of a fair rate of profit. We are having built up tremendous vested interests in armaments. Until you have some real check on profiteering you will not disabuse the minds of the people of this country of a very well-justified suspicion concerning those who operate in private armaments. I have one reference to make to the inquiry into the private manufacture of armaments, in order to call attention to what I regard as a very serious error on the part of the Government. Ministers are responsible for policy. It is their duty to take the blame for anything that goes wrong in that Department and they ought not to put forward a civil servant to make statements of policy.
Before the Armaments Inquiry we had a. very distinguished civil servant, Sir Maurice Hankey, who, in the course of his evidence, gave replies which were not matters of evidence but matters of opinion. To put him in that position and still more to ask him to give statements on such matters is, I think, entirely wrong. It is unfair to a civil servant, a


soldier or a sailor that he should be put in that position. He may very well give technical evidence but if asked his opinion on a matter of acute political controversy, he ought to be instructed to say, "That is a matter on which I cannot reply." As a matter of fact, Sir Maurice Hankey actually stated that he appeared as an advocate against the side that was putting forward the case against the private manufacture of arms. The chairman of the inquiry asked:
It is réally a speech of counsel in reply?—A. That is right.
It is not any longer evidence, your second statement, it is a criticism of the case made against private manufacture?—A. Yes.
I suggest that that is entirely wrong. If they wanted to put in an advocate they had the Law Officers of the Crown who are trained advocates, and it is not right, as I say, to put a civil servant in the position of giving his judgment as Sir Maurice Hankey did on such a matter as that of the peace ballot. That is not his job and he is no better able than anybody else to give a judgment on that matter. He prejudged the whole issue on which the committee was to decide. What is the result of that? The public learns that a man in a key position has expressed very strong views on a matter which excites acute public controversy. What is the position of such a man in the event of a change in Government? It is a tradition in this country that civil servants and soldiers and sailors loyally serve any Government which is in office. I do not for a moment suggest that Sir Maurice Hankey would do anything different, but he has been put in such a position that people in the country can say, "You see they have a man there with certain views and certain prejudices." I think the Government in that respect have done a grave disservice to a great public servant by putting him in an entirely false position.
There are some other matters to which I wish to allude. I wonder where the right hon. Gentleman is going for his information. I hope he is making his inquiries very wide and that he intends to see a great deal of the younger members of the services in his investigations. There is a tendency in some Government offices to think that a Minister must confine himself to a narrow range of high civil servants or of generals or admirals,

and that he must not seek information everywhere. I regard that as a completely wrong view. In the right hon. Gentleman's position it is, I suggest, his duty to make himself acquainted with the best thought in all three services and not only that of the older men. I take it that one of his instructions, at least, is that he should look round to see what is going wrong, and I submit as a broad general principle that, in anything dealing with the fighting services, it is always worth while to find out what the younger men are thinking, because the older men are generally out of date. That is particularly so where there are three separate services and where one service is much younger than the others. There is an enormous weight of prestige and society influence on the side of the older services. I hold no brief for one service against the others. I want to see real co-ordination between them, but it is idle to deny that there is a heavy weight of vested interests in the older services and the older forms of warfare.
I must say that I had hoped that today we should get something like a wide appreciation of the situation from the right hon. Gentleman. What we got was far too much a mere continuation of what is expressed in the phrase "filling up deficiencies." The Government are not filling up deficiencies. They are entering upon a very heavy armaments programme. One can date the change from the second year of the National Government and it has gone on, concurrently with the deterioration in foreign affairs. We on this side are not persuaded that the defence policy of the Government is a reality. We are sure that the right hon. Gentleman is working hard and doing his best, but we do not believe that he has been put in a position of real authority. I am convinced that what is required is a thorough overhaul of all the services and of the relations of those services to one another. The answer doubtless will be that we cannot have that overhaul because we are engaged in a great building-up process to meet an emergency. But what will be the good, if at the end of four years, you have simply piled up an immense mass of waste?
We believe that your defence policy must depend on your foreign policy. We


have not heard a word of the co-ordination of our defence plans with the Dominions and the other parts of the British Empire. We have not had a word of any co-ordination of our defence plans with other States who are with us in the system of collective security, and we on this side will strenuously oppose the Government not because we do not think that this country must have adequate defences in order to pay its part in collective security, but because we believe that the Government's insincerity over collective security is only equalled by their inefficiency in defence organisation.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence at the outset of his speech opined that what he called "the close season" as affecting himself was over, and that he was now liable to be shot at. I would like to reassure him that, so far as I am concerned, he is certainly not to blame for anything that has gone wrong in the present situation. No responsibility for the position in which we stand rests upon his shoulders, whatever may be the responsibilities which he is contracting towards the future. He has succeeded to a lamentable inheritance. The delays which have taken place in putting our defences in order have been intolerable. Three years ago the plainest warnings and the fullest accounts were given of what was happening elsewhere. Even a year ago or thereabouts, when 100 or more Members sent a memorial to the Prime Minister for the appointment of such a functionary as we now have the advantage of having with us, no decision was taken. I ask the Prime Minister, at any time, to explain to us why a whole year has been wasted before arriving at decisions which are now admitted to be necessary.
The Leader of the Liberal party asked why the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence was not appointed before the defence scheme was settled. A very obvious question. I have asked it myself, but where is the answer? There is no answer. It was not until February of this year that the White Paper defining the office of my right hon. Friend was given to Parliament, and even after that there were three weeks of delay in selecting the man to fill the office. No explanation has ever been forthcoming of all this

wasted time in the fulfilment of what, is now represented as a necessary step, though I admit a subsidiary step. That is where we are to-day. Let me say to my right hon. Friend that, while no one is going to try to fix responsibility upon him or harass him in his difficult task, he must not expect, because he, having been appointed to this office, must necessarily study these matters and acquire knowledge of them, that during that period in this most critical time, the necessary criticism and investigation of the House of Commons into defence matters will be suspended. I am sure he would not expect that, and I give him every possible disclaimer, as far as I am personally concerned, that no one is attempting to attach the slightest blame to him.
First I will deal with the character and scope of the new office which has been created. I do not think such a plan could have been made by anyone who apprehended the problem. There are three Service Departments, the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Whereupon the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

1. Civil List Act, 1936.
2. Coinage Offences Act, 1936.
3. Voluntary Hospitals (Paying Patients) Act. 1936.
4. Sugar Industry (Reorganization) Act, 1936.
5. East Lothian County Council Order Confirmation Act, 1936.
6. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act. 1936.
7. Grampian Electricity Supply Order Confirmation Act, 1936.
8. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Luton) Act, 1936.
9. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Cone: oration (Matlock), Act, 1936.


10. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bridport Joint Hospital District) Act, 1936.
11. Royal National Pension Fund for Nurses Act, 1936.
12. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Act, 1936.
13. Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction Act, 1936.
14. Rhymney Valley Sewerage Board Act, 1936.
15. South East Cornwall Water Board Act, 1936.
16. Yorkshire Electric Power Act, 1936.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That sub-head BB (Salary of Minister for Co-ordination of Defence) be reduced by £100."

6.27 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was proceeding to examine in a spirit of precise criticism the character and scope of the new office, the Estimates of which we are for the first time discussing to-day. I was suggesting that if the actualities had been fully apprehended it would not have taken its present form. There are three Service Departments—the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry—and there is also a fourth Department now represented by the Supply Committee or the Supply Board—I am not sure what is the right name for it—which is virtually a Ministry of Munitions in embryo. There are four Departments. They are concerned with defence, and it is incongruous and a serious fault in organisation to make a Minister who has to concert the combined action of all four Departments to be also the head of the Supply Branch— or the Ministry of Munitions into which it may broaden—which is also one of them. The work of the Minister of Supply, or Minister of Munitions, or the head of the Supply Branch—by whatever name you like to call it—is so exacting that, in my judgment, it now requires, and has long required, the attention of an important Minister. It touches immediately the most delicate and formidable Parliamentary issues—profits and profiteering on the one hand; dilution,

apprenticeship, training and transference upon the other. All those matters fall in that scope, and nothing could be more unreasonable than to link the functions of the head of the Supply Board or a Minister of Munitions with the function of co-ordinating strategic thought with the choice of the major instrumentalities of war or the final advice to the Cabinet upon priority. They are two entirely different functions. One is the hustling, bustling, day-to-day job, with frequent contact with the House of Commons; the other requires broad directives achieved in a somewhat rarefied atmosphere and under conditions necessarily, in most cases, of secrecy and often of scheme. No singe man could do those two jobs. I do not believe there is bred the kind of man, however good he may be for either of them, who would be capable of undertaking both of them at the same time.
Let me mention by way of illustration, not because I wish to discuss them or because I expect the Government to discuss them, a few of the questions which we want to feel assured that the high coordinator has passed through his brain and upon which he has reached conviction. Many of them are in the minds of the Committee. Upon some of them, he has told us, he is already engaged. There is the question of the air bomb versus the battleship, the question of the Fleet Air Arm, the obtrusion of treaty requirements upon the common sense development of the Royal Navy, the question of whether we should promise any foreign country to send an expeditionary force to the Continent of Europe an the outbreak of war and, if so, how we are to create that expeditionary force, or whether, on the other hand, our aid in the first instance should only be by the air and by the sea and by the world influence which the British nation and Empire is able to exert. There is the question of how we should retain our command in the Mediterranean in view of the new diplomatic conditions which will prevail there in future years, how far it should be by the Navy and how far by the air, or by what combination of the two.
There is the question of the military value of Russia, a tremendous question upon which my right hon. Friend has the responsibility of being the adviser to His Majesty's Government, a matter, I may say, not to be dealt with by the War


Office, or the Admiralty or the Air Ministry, but obviously by a combination of the three, and a political officer who has comprehension of the political and economic aspects which are also involved. There is a very grave new question which seems to be swimming into our ken. Are we in danger, in this island, of invasion from the air? I do not mean invasion by hostile aeroplanes which cast bombs, or thermite bombs, though in all conscience, that is bad enough, but whether it is not possible now or whether it may not be possible soon, to land from the air substantial forces which, in a country where no one is armed or trained—or very few are—might seize important points and rule important districts for a long time.
I have only ventured to mention these issues as typical of the questions for which the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence will have to bear the supreme responsibility of advising the head of the Government and the Cabinet. But how absurd to combine all this tremendous obligation of thought with being responsible for whether we have enough cobalt, or chromium, or nickel, or a hundred and one other matters equally vital, whether our oil supplies are adequate, or whether the supply of precision tools—a matter with which the Minister has been dealing to-day—is equal to the demand, and how soon it can be made equal, and by what emergency method. Another question is whether the trade unions will agree to the necessary processes of dilution, apprenticeship and transference, and how negotiations should be undertaken, and whether any good plan can be devised which, to use an American term—a term which I think we must get into our minds —will "Take the profit out of war," and thus cleanse the life-defence of the nation from the taint of sordid personal gain.
Another question is how we are to get the delivery of the goods. There is a practical question. What are the right processes to use in the factories; how are you going to make the thousands of cannon, the millions of shells, of air bombs, of trench-mortar bombs and all other kinds of projectiles in the proportions which your own schemes need and which every other country is arranging to provide on a far larger scale? How are you going to provide for the overseas supplies for 45,000,000 people whose shipping has been greatly reduced since

the late war? What about gas masks, and all that story, and the defence of the civil population from aerial attack by chemical means? It would be easy to extend the list of questions. Have I not shown to the Committee the two vast sets of functions which exist in different spheres? Fancy trying to combine those two sets of functions in a single individual. No one who has any practical experience or is willing to learn from the experience of the past would ever have suggested it. I am quite sure that if my right hon. Friend had understood the conditions of his office he would either have asked for less responsibility or for more power. Probably he would have been well advised to ask for both, for the appointment which has been given to him and the burden which has been cast upon him do not conform to any principle of rational organisation, and in my opinion they are not a fair load to lay or any man.
I now turn to the main issue, what is our own position in the matter of defence? We do not hesitate to give law to nations, to arraign delinquent peoples at our bar. How stands our own defence? Before and during the General Election the Prime Minister freely exposed the deficiencies in our defences. Oddly enough he dwelt particularly on the deficiencies in the Navy, which appears to be the only service which this year, and probably next year, is not unequal to its immediate responsibilities. But then, towards the end of the election, he made haste to say, "I give you my word there will be no great armaments." Frankly, I do not understand that statement in the circumstances in which we are or in the context of our thought and discussions. Is not doubling or trebling the Air Force a great armament? Is not trying to have an Air Force—trying vainly, I admit— equal to that of Germany or France a great armament? What is the point of saying we are not to have great armaments? There is only, one explanation, and that is that these great armaments will exist only on paper, and that it is not in our power for a very long time to obtain the deliveries which would turn them into realities. There followed the White Paper setting forth in extremely vague terms the plan for a very large rearmament. As a paper plan, I have nothing to say against it. That was three months ago.
Let me draw attention to the rapid passage of time. Three months—passed in a flash. But events are moving all the time. All the time all over the world events are moving. Three months and—Hullo, another defence debate! Three months ago I ventured to say that it was no use asking the Government for a larger programme because, except perhaps in the building of destroyers for the Navy, work which could be placed out in smaller yards, they would not be able to execute the programmes which they had already declared and on which they are engaged. The limited sums of money which the Departments are able to spend are an unfailing tell-tale of the fact that they are not able to carry out this process of rearmament which they desire to do and which they have the gravest need to execute. I defy anyone to rise from the Treasury Bench and say that the programmes to which they have set their hands are going to be carried out punctually to the dates which have been affixed to them as part of the process which will give us our safety, in their opinion and in the opinion of their experts.
Three months have passed since I urged upon the Government the formation of a Ministry of Munitions. We are now told that that may be necessary in the future, but it is a dividing line, so said my right hon. Friend, between the Government and me—or it is one of the dividing lines—that I advocate the creation of a Ministry of Munitions and that they do not think it is time to undertake it. It ought to have been created a year ago. No doubt it will be created six months or a year hence. What has been gained by the past delay? What will be gained by the further delay? Have things got any better since this time last year? Have the Government any assurance that they will get better by this time next year? Everything has become worse as every month has passed. Show me a single quarter in the world where there is the slightest improvement. Show me a single great new fact which should give us reassurance. I ask every Member of the Committee to consider the position for himself.
The rearmament of Germany is proceding upon a colossal scale, and at desperate break-neck speed. All Europe is arming and preparing the whole of industry for war. At the other end of tile world Japan is fiercely arming and is

in a state of the highest martial exaltation. All the old, evil factors which were apparent a year ago, all the old perils, are now presented in an aggravated form. The only new factor, the only great new prime factor, is the grave antagonism which has grown up between us and Italy. Everything is worse. Can anyone deny that everything is worse, from the point of peace and safety, than it was this time last year Three months ago there were many complaints in the Defence Debate about the vagueness of the White Paper. Why did the Committee suppose that it was vague? I imagine it was vague because the Government had not the slightest idea of how and when it could be executed. But in this matter time is the supreme condition. You may draw up a programme to be executed in three years. You may feel sure and tell Parliament that it will make us reasonably safe. So it might, if it could be executed in that time and if nothing else happened abroad before that time. But will anyone on the Treasury Bench say that punctuality can be achieved? Already we hear that the three years may be four or five years, and so forth. What does that mean? Of course it means that the programme is already hopelessly in arrears, that deliveries are not coming to hand, that what the Government themselves think necessary for the safety of the country to be accomplished in no more than three years can only be accomplished in five. Therefore we shall not be provided with the safety which we need, because everything turns on time, and because to use Burke's famous phrase, "Every single set of circumstances involves every other set." Where will others be then, if you are late? What, for instance, will be the strength of the German Army or the German Air Force in 1938 or 1939?
Let it be observed that it is not simply a question of spreading what ought to be done in three years over five; it is much worse than that. I have endeavoured to explain very respectfully to the Committee that the first and second years of a munitions programme are comparatively unproductive. Everything that has fallen from my right hon. Friend this afternoon would confirm that. In these sombre fields, in the first year you have to sow and in the second year you harrow; the third year is your harvest. In the first year you make


your machine tools and designs. In the second year you make your plants and you lay them out. You marshal and secure your labour, skilled and unskilled. In the third year come deliveries. No doubt all those processes overlap and you get, over three years, a yield rising very sharply in the latter period; but, broadly speaking, the effective result comes only in the third year. Now, if you dawdle a three years' programme over five years, it means that your results do not come to hand on a large scale until the fourth or fifth year, and you have to pass, and we shall all have to pass, through a very long valley of unprotected preparation. It is in this period, these three or four years which lie between us and the proper placing of our country in a state of domestic security, that I fear the affairs of Europe may reach their climax.
What, I ask again, is the object in delaying the formation of a Ministry of Munitions? Last week, when I was passing the Hotel Metropole and saw all the vans gathered there to carry away the furniture, in order that the hotel shall be a temporary Government office while some rehousing scheme of the various Departments goes on, I said to myself, "Late as it is, here is the moment. Here is the place." It is a very difficult task for a private Member to make constructive propositions. I do not content myself with criticisms and with recriminations about the past, although the day for those may come, but I venture, appealing to the indulgence of the Committee for anyone who, from a private station, makes a considerable constructive proposal in some detail, to offer, most respectfully, to the Government the following course of action:
Let them choose a Minister. They have competent ones upon that bench who are not always given a chance, but there are very able men. Let them appoint a Minister of Munitions. Naturally, you would not want to use, at this moment, all the powers which rested with the Minister of Munitions in time of war. It is only darkening counsel to pretend that the issue is whether you shall go on as you are or go to the full war-time extreme of Governmental control. There are many intermediate stages between those conditions. Only a portion of the powers of the old Minister of Munitions need be

brought into play at the outset. More can be added by Parliament as they are needed, as they can be used and as the dangers grow.
Then, I would suggest, this Minister should form a council of a dozen of the best, live, active, youngish business men and manufacturers in the country. I am told that the new generation of British business men is as good as, or is better than, the ones that carried us through the period of the Great War, in ability, in force and in organising power. Give them a chance; let them get their teeth into this job. Do not put it all on a Minister who has so many other duties and so many divergent lines of thought. Let each of those be given a sphere, and a section of work to plan and supervise—but also with collective responsibility as a member of the Munitions Council—for the general work of the Department. Let them be supported by competent civil servants; many of those are already in the Supply Board, and no better could you find than the admirable Sir Arthur Robinson who has been mentioned, and who is struggling so hard at the Supply Board. You must have the civil servants and the business men if you are to have the administration.
Let the Government transfer to this Ministry, as soon as it is willing to undertake the task, by instalments, the whole business of supply and design for the Air Force and for the Army, and such portions of Naval supply as are not concerned in the construction of warships and certain special Naval stores. These, and certain ancillaries, I would leave to the Admiralty because, to a very large extent, they have already their own great plants in existence and in operation, because they have the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors and because expansion for defence purposes does not strain the Navy in the same degree as it does the other two Services. The Navy is already upon a European or a world scale, but, so far as the Army and the Air Force are concerned, the whole of the staffs employed, not only in production but, I repeat, in design, ought to be handed over. I admit it sounds a hard thing for these military Departments to be asked to hand over designs, but that was the lesson which, in the War, we learned only very late, and in a very hard school.
The relation of the Ministry of Munitions with the fighting Services is the relation of a shopkeeper to his customers. There was always the maxim, I am told: "The customer is always right." The customers prescribe the requirements and the shopkeepers supply them, Although the maxim that the customer is always right should apply to all good business, it does not prevent the shopkeeper pointing out how best the convenience of the fighting Services can be suited, or even drawing attention to some attractive article of which the customer might never have heard. These are the relations which should exist between a competent Ministry of Munitions, the Supply Departments and the fighting Departments.
Before the Government brush aside this proposal, let us again turn our gaze abroad. Take Germany, for instance. I choose Germany because of the excellent arrangements which they have made. There they have organised the whole industry of the nation for war, and a very large part of it is actually working on a war basis. All their designs have been conceived for mass production. Sometimes, not quite the best article has been chosen, because the second best would lend itself more readily to mass production. Simplicity has been the aim of the immense process which is taking place in Germany; above all, the power to make complicated munitions upon a great scale by unskilled labour, and, in war time, by female labour. Since the Nazi regime began, three years ago, 4,000,000 more persons are employed in Germany, practically all upon munitions or in the fighting forces. These are additional to all those who were so employed before, and they were very numerous. The public have simply no idea, nor will the speech of my right hon. Friend give them any idea, of the efficiency of German war production, of its enormous scale or with what marvellous smoothness it can be made to pour out an almost limitless flow of the most horrible weapons of human destruction which have ever been placed in the unworthy hands of man.
For the present, of course, we are hound to rely upon existing types and patterns. These cannot be relinquished until new forms of production are ready to take their place, but those new forms must be prepared for an emergency. But

even the process of working on the supply of existing patterns cannot be extended to meet our needs, or even go half way to meet them, under the present system, or under the direction of the Service Departments. I heard the other day the following remark: "You would surely not deprive the Secretary of State for War of the responsibility for his own munitions supply?" That is exactly what I would do. Curiously enough, those words sounded like an echo from the past. They were the very words which I heard Lord Kitchener use in the early months of 1915. "I could never give up," he said, "responsibility for the ammunition of the Army." But he had to. He had to be made to, and unless he had been made to and been willing to accept it—and afterwards been thankful—his soldiers could never have been supplied with all that they needed. This is one of the lessons which we all had to learn with blood and tears. Have we really got to learn them all over again now?
In quiet times in a, long peace, you may, without serious disadvantage, leave your munitions supply to the Service Departments. They have their list of normal Government contractors and their Government factories. Their requirements are small and regular. You can get along in that way. But from the moment you begin to expand upon a great scale, the question of supply ceases to be a Service question. It becomes a vast trade and industrial question, and the people who must direct that business can only be the people who know all about modern scientific manufacture and who are accustomed, from life-long experience, to the organisation and conduct of great productive plants. You cannot possibly leave this immense business in the hands of ordinary permanent officials of the Service Departments, many of them of humble rank, honest and faithful though they be. You will neither get the best designs nor will you get the swiftest method or the required deliveries. I cannot understand why the Government think it a virtue to dally and hesitate here. Have we not suffered grievously by what has already happened? Why should paralysis be paraded as phlegmatic composure, and havering between half-a-dozen policies acclaimed as sobriety and wisdom 7 Three years of procrastination,


which have converted to its aid all the loyalties of this country, have wrought us an injury which we can now see, and of which only the future knows the measure.
Already, in the last Parliament, we had confessions of failure and of miscalculations about the air. My right hon. and learned Friend has this afternoon revealed to us the terrible hiatus which must intervene before machine tools and gauges can be supplied. Suppose, three years ago, when the Government were first warned, and when what was taking place abroad became widely known, they had said: "We will, at any rate, begin to put our industries into a state of preparation. No one could say that is provocative."—Ordering battleships and so forth might have disturbed your disarmament policy, but to make the simple provision of getting these indirect, but very vital implements could not have been called provocative.—" We will make the lay-outs of the factories. We will see about the precision tools. We will have everything ready so that, if our well-meant example of disarming should not be followed by other countries, and if we pursue it to the last moment and then find ourselves in a difficult position, we shall, at any rate, have got ready underneath the means of repairing the risk that we have run. We can begin at once to re-arm." If only two years ago the measures which have now been taken had been put into operation we should be getting very considerable supplies. You would have your future in your own hands. You would be the masters of the events and not, perhaps, their victim. Even a year ago, when there was no dispute about the danger, when it was common ground among all parties and when the Prime Minister admitted that mistakes had been made, even then there was just time to do a lot. Then
Why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
Why still, now at the eleventh hour, are we unable to decide on measures equal to the emergency? Is there no grip, no driving force, no mental energy, no power of decision or design? We are told that we must not interfere with the normal course of trade, that we must not alarm the easy-going voter and the public. How thin and paltry these arguments will sound if we are caught a year or two

hence fat, opulent, free-spoken—and defenceless. I do not ask that war conditions should be established in order to execute these programmes. All I ask is that these programmes to which the Government have attached their confidence shall be punctually executed, whatever may be the disturbance of our daily life.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: It is always interesting when we have a speech from the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because he knows what he stands for, when to give decisions and when to lay a practical programme before the House. That is a contrast from the programme we are getting from the hands of the Government at present. It has been becoming clear for a long time that there is no adequate direction or control. One may not agree altogether with the programme sketched by the right hon. Gentleman, but to a considerable extent he is on the right lines when he says that we should take steps now to separate the supply side from the strategic side, and appoint the necessary members of the Government for that purpose. The Minister for Defence, as we should have expected of him, has started his job well. He has shown those powers of competence, directness and the sincerity which he possesses, and I believe he is doing all he can within the limits of his task. He is very much limited. Something has been said about putting the cart before the horse. The right hon. Gentleman should have been supplied with a Rolls Royce to carry out his work properly, but he has been put in charge of something like a perambulator, and one cannot expects very great results from that.
I was disappointed with the final words of his peroration, that if we went on the lines that have been settled, we should achieve a great task. Surely the great task is to make all these preparations unnecessary, to have a scheme of disarmament in the world, in which we should play our part. It seemed lacking in imagination that the right hon. Gentleman should be content to sit down on that note, that these plans were necessary for making preparations all over the country to manufacture armaments for human destruction. The great task of co-ordinating defences in this


country is only a part of the greater task of co-ordinating defences throughout the world in a system of collective security. The Prime Minister has told us recently that collective security involves military sanctions, in the long run and in the short run. I hope that is to be the policy on which the Government are to act in every case in the future. It has not been so in the past. If that is so, our contributions for collective security must be adequate, proportionate and worthy of this great country.
The right hon. Gentleman said that our liabilities had been increased by our membership of the League of Nations. The exact opposite is the truth. If you adopt the only alternative policy of alliances, arrangements and purely national armaments, you will want something immensely superior to anything that is being planned at the present time if we are to hold our own against possible combinations of that kind. The only way of making sure that armaments will not have to be used, and which will make possible a policy of curtailing, reducing and abolishing them, is to make clear that we are willing to take our part always in collective security in any part of the world. Sanctions do not mean war. It is the uncertainty whether they will be applied that means war, and that has brought us near to it during the last few months. Sometimes one hears it said that we should abandon this policy and go in for others. I warn the Government that the nominal policy on which they are working, that of collective security, is the only one which the people of this country would ever consent to support and to fight for. If they imagine that they can land us in any conflict not based on the collective system they will have a rude awakening. They will find such dissatisfaction, disagreement and controversy as to render us completely impotent in any conflict that may take place. I hope, therefore, the Government will persevere sincerely in making a reality of collective security, including of course military sanctions.
While we have had this satisfactory statement from the Prime Minister recently, I am still in doubt what the Government's policy is with regard to the defence of the country. This is a matter that has puzzled many people and caused great dissatisfaction all over the

country. It is clear that in our conflict, as a leading member of the League, with Italy, we have taken the line that we would not do anything that would involve military sanctions, that we would not use arms of any kind. That was fatal. We had one hand tied behind our back. The Government policy seem up to this moment to have been one of turning the other cheek—a policy of non-resistance. It qualifies members of the Cabinet for membership of Canon Shepherd's league of non-resistors, with this difference: He makes no pretence about it: He says: "I would not resist; I would have no armaments." The Government say, "We will have vast armaments; we will not resist." The former policy is the more sincere and the less hypocritical of the two.
The right hon. Gentleman said the programme they were going in for would not alarm anybody. It certainly will not alarm the Italians. It will alarm no country if you tell them you will not make use of the armaments that you are providing. In their fatal and futile policy of not using military sanctions, the Government have allowed the aggressor to call the tune. It has been a shameful and humiliating policy for us. It has caused us to be regarded throughout the world as coming nearly into the category of a second-class Power. I believe we are the greatest Power in the world. The Government's policy has, unfortunately, given a very different impression abroad.
Hon. Members may smile, but people in other parts of the world are laughing at us and at our humiliation, and wondering how it is that the great prestige of this country has disappeared in the last few months. If the Government continue on the policy of the last few months my right hon. Friend's task will be very different from what he has been describing. Cardboard guns will be sufficient for the purpose; bombs can be ordered from the firework factories of Messrs. Brock and Messrs. Pain and most of his time will be taken up with making camouflage of some sort or other. I hope the statement of the Prime Minister the other day means that in the final issue we are prepared to use the armaments that are being provided. If that is so, it will never be necessary to use them, because no country will want to come up against us and


those countries associated with us. That is the only true peace policy.
I would like to support the plea of my right hon. Friend for a definite statement on the Government's plans for an expeditionary force at the beginning of a war. I can understand that if you were involved in a conflict similar to the Great War it might be necessary to go all out and put everything in, but we want to know what is the policy on which the Government are working to start at the beginning of hostilities. The country is entitled to know. I asked a question of the Prime Minister about this some months ago, but he gave no adequate reply and said there would be opportunities of getting this information in Debate. The opportunity has now arisen and, as directed by the Prime Minister, I am asking if he will take it and define precisely the lines on which the Government are working in this direction.
My right hon. Friend referred to officers who have been through the Imperial Defence College. These officers with unique training should all be employed in positions where they can make use of their experience. I am told that a large number of them have been placed in positions where no advantage is taken of this training. I hope we can have some assurance that they will be fitted into positions worthy of them, and that, above all, my right hon. Friend has some of them on his personal staff. That would be some reassurance to many of us. The Minister referred to the question of supply. I am afraid there can be no doubt that there will be immense delay in the delivery of the various articles contracted for.
He referred also to the question of profits. I was not impressed with the remark he made that these manufacturers had had rather a poor time for the last few years, had not had many orders and had not been making many profits, and that it was only reasonable that they should have some chance of making profits out of the present programme. That is not the view the country takes. The view of the country is that the minimum possible profit shall be allowed to anybody out of the present necessities of the nation. If it were possible for these things to be made without any profit to anybody, the country would be all the

more delighted. I believe that the actual plans of the Minister for defining the profit per article are quite effective, and that the amount is very limited, but when you consider the enormous number of articles manufactured, obviously a small profit per unit is going to develop into something very large indeed, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether he would not be wise to recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility of some kind of direct tax on armament profits. I know that it is an infinitely difficult thing to work out……

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Surely it would require legislation.

Mr. MANDER: No, Sir; what am suggesting is that the Minister should ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have inquiry made as to whether it would not be possible to place a direct tax upon profits made out of armaments. I believe it would make the right hon. Gentleman's task much easier than it is. He will be hampered and checked if there is a feeling abroad that people are making money out of this matter, but, if there is an 80 per cent. excess profits duty, or something of that kind, people will be far more willing to cooperate and play their part on purely disinterested patriotic grounds than if they feel that somebody is making a great deal of money out of the present situation in this country.
I feel that the position in which the right hon. Gentleman has been placed is one which does not enable him to carry out the duties that are required of a Minister in his position at this time. I feel that we shall never solve our defence problems properly until we have a Minister to whom the chiefs of the three Services are subordinate, and who is able to control them—who is able to say to them, "Submit to me your Estimates; tell me how much you want for the various things you have in mind," and is then in a position to say to each of the three Ministers, "Your share is so much," and, if there is any dispute, to take it to the Cabinet. I quite appreciate that in any arrangement of this kind the Service Ministers would suffer in prestige. They would be far less important than they are at the present


time, and I think that that is quite right. We want some overriding authority. I know that the term "Minister of Defence" is not popular, but for want of another I would make use of it, and I still hope that, as the result of the experience which the Government are now obtaining and will obtain, they will feel that it is right at this stage and in these critical times to appoint some Minister with the necessary powers to override all the activities of the Service Ministers. I believe we are certain to come to that, and the sooner it is done the better. Because we on these benches are dissatisfied with the powers which the right hon. Gentleman is controlling in connection with his duties, and are dissatisfied with the steps, or want of steps, that the Government are taking to make use of the armaments that will be supplied to them for the purposes of collective security, we intend to vote against this Estimate to-night.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is not here. Possibly he may reappear in due course. I am sorry because I have observed more than once in my Parliamentary career that, while he comes down to the House and makes violent attacks upon individual Members of the Government or others, very frequently he is not here to receive anything that is waiting for him in return.

Earl WINTERTON: Nor is the Member of the Government whom he attacked.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I do not think that any complaint can be brought against the Member of the Government whom he attacked for not remaining to hear the counter-attack, which in the case in question may fail. I do not think that any Member of the House will accuse me of any ulterior aim if I congratulate the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence upon his appointment. I think I was one of the very few Members of the House who did not put in an application for that particular post, and, quite candidly, I should have refused it if the Prime Minister had been so mad as to offer it to me. But I would say to the Minister that, of all the names that were canvassed, his was never thought of; it took us on the

back benches entirely by surprise. His name had never been mentioned in all the canvassing and discussion that had been going on beforehand, and I must say that it was a very great surprise, and a very pleasant surprise. The one sort of person that we do not want in that position is the man who dashes about saying, "Something must be done." We had quite enough of that in the Great War, and the thing in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping to which I hope most that the Government will not listen is his suggestion that we should repeat all the follies, the scandals, the waste and the inefficiency of the Ministry of Munitions during the War.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, as a brother in the trenches, whether he would suggest that we should ever have won the War without the Ministry of Munitions?

Mr. HOPKINSON: It would not be in order, and I do not propose, to enter into a discussion as to who won the War and how it was won, but I am well within the recollection of everyone who served in the War when I say that the Ministry of Munitions was in many respects a monument of waste and inefficiency.
May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to one or two very practical, though perhaps minor, points that are germane to this Debate? There is no doubt at all, and I think the right hon. Gentleman hinted at it in his speech, that there are going to be very considerable labour troubles very shortly in connection with this armament programme. Murmurings are already going on in the North, and the first question of importance, so far as material is concerned, is how we are going to deal with the situation which may arise with respect to supplies. As hon. Members may know, I have had considerable experience in working out in practice new methods of remuneration of labour in industry, and, if I may be permitted to say so, I might possibly be able to help if such a situation as I fear does happen to arise in the near future. There is no doubt that, as I have found by long experience, the only method of getting the best possible output from our working people to-day is the method of individual piecework as


we have known it in the engineering trade for so many years. Systems of collective piecework can only be introduced under very drastic precautions, and without too great an expectation of success. That has been my experience over a period of many years.
There is another very practical point in connection with this question of remuneration, and here I may perhaps refer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping in his position when he had charge of these affairs. Possibly he will remember that appalling piece of folly, the raising by a flat-rate percentage of the rates of remuneration of all munition workers, and the result of doing that. It is impossible to imagine in the circumstances anything more idiotic than a flat-rate advance all round such as he gave to munition workers when he had the chance. The trouble is arising already, as it arose during the War, and must always arise when there is a big expansion in the manufacture of machines.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Nothing could be more inaccurate than the account that the hon. Member is giving. The decision was taken by the War Cabinet, which included Mr. Barnes and Lord Milner. The intention was not to give a flat-rate rise over the whole field, but only to secure better remuneration for those who had taught all the new people—the non-commissioned officers of labour, so to speak.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I say that the policy was foolish and the results were disastrous, no matter how it appeared on paper. To continue what I was saying, the question of dilution is really the main question. At present, in the engineering trade, we are suffering from a very great shortage of skilled labour, even in ordinary civilian work, and quite apart from any armaments expansion programme. I believe that on the books of the Amalgamated Engineering Union there are not more than 11,000 members registered as wanting employment, and, of those 11,000, a very considerable proportion, as any engineer must admit, are men who are not in any sense of the word really skilled men at all. Of the rest, a considerable number are elderly men, who find it very difficult to get a

satisfactory job under modern conditions of employment and modern speed methods in engineering works. Those elderly men, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, should be sought out, because their experience and their skill may be of immense value in the training of these dilutees, as we may call them, who will have to be introduced.
There is another point in connection with this dilution of labour which was missed absolutely by the Minister, of Munitions during the War. These semi-trained folk who are brought in, and are put to work on machinery which is largely automatic in its operation, are very soon, if they are intelligent people, able to earn very large wages on piecework rates. They apply their intelligence to simple operations, and they are able, as I say, to earn very big wages, as they did in the War. But the whole success of their efforts, and the amount of wages that they draw, depends ultimately upon the skill of really trained skilled men who are responsible for setting up the machinery and for the processes which go to make it possible for the semi-skilled men to earn large wages. Surely it is only common sense that a percentage of the piecework wages earned by the semi-skilled men in munition works should always be written to the account of the skilled men who are responsible for setting up their tools for them, and providing the necessary skill to enable them to earn those wages. It seems to me to be a perfectly simple device, and one which might have a profound effect in doing away with the discontent which, unhappily, is already developing in the engineering trade.
One thing that is certain, and I think the right hon. Gentleman probably knows this as well as I do. is that there is this profound shortage, largely due, I am afraid, to the fact that engineering wages have been far too low during the last few years. A large neduber of men have gone into other occupations where they have made better money, and there is a very great falling off in new entrants into the industry, en account of the low wages. The engineering employers at the present day are suffering for their folly and their meanness in the past, and the Government's armament programme is going to suffer too from that folly on the part of these employers of labour. To


turn to larger questions, it seems to me, and I daresay Members of the Government will agree, that the most important factor in the whole situation, both of this country and of the world at large at the present day—the real core of everything, when all extraneous and less important matters are stripped off—is the quality of the personnel of the Air Force of this Empire. So far as the material resources of the Air Force are concerned, there is no doubt that the new stuff that is coming forward is far in advance of that possessed by any competing nation with whom we might be at war at any time. It is really of the very highest quality.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by clirection of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX (IMPROVEMENTS, ETC.), BILL.

(By Order.)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday next, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

SUPPLY.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed, on consideration of Question:
That a sum, not exceeding £217,113 (including a Supplementary sum of £13,262), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, and the Salary of the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence.
Question again proposed,
That Sub-head BB (Salary of Minister for Co-ordination of Defence) be reduced by £100."—[Sir A. Sinclair.]

7.31 p.m.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I was saying when we were interrupted that the key to the whole position is the quality of the personnel of the Air Force, because the material position has been so much better during the last two years that it takes almost a secondary place in comparison with the other. In this connection, I

would again refer to the right hon. Member for Epping. If his advice, given, as he says, three years ago, had been followed, what would have been the position of the Air Force to-day? The Air Force would have been overwhelmed with a vast quantity of utterly obsolete material. The whole technical position has changed completely within the last 18 months, and the new stuff that the Air Force is now getting—and the deliveries are coming forward very well indeed, much better than anyone might have expected—is miles above what the Air Force would have had to use for fighting and bombing if his advice had been taken and we had spent all our money and made the whole of our effort three years ago. There is another thing that the right hon. Gentleman always forgets. Three years ago could the Government of the day have got the necessary money out of the people of this country without losing the General Election? Everybody knows that they could not. There has been a complete change of outlook, and anything within reason that is called for now can be got, but in those days it could not have been got without shaking the Government's position to its very foundations.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us again and again with the fullest possible detail what is being done in Germany. How does he know all these matters of detail? How is it that he has to inform the Government on the Floor of this House of all these detailed performances by the German Government, and what is happening there, and the things that he spoke about to-night, when he said that if only we knew we should be terrified out of our lives? Has he any real source of information that is really dependable in these matters, or is he just guessing and putting forward these things merely to weaken the position of the Leader whom he is supposed to be supporting? Let him tell this House definitely: Has he really got some sources of information, or, as I say, are his figures mere guess-work—part of the party game of ousting his own Leader to take his place, a game that he has played many times before within my recollection?

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Was he guessing about the Air Force?

Mr. HOPKINSON: That is what I am trying to find out. What we want to know is whether he has really got any


source of information. Is it, as I say, just guesswork, or has he reliable sources of information? He will not tell us, and I know perfectly well why he will not tell us. It is because he can see very well what either answer would bring in retort from me. If he says that he has not got these sources of information, obviously all this talk of his over these past months is so much flapdoodle; if, on the contrary, he says. he has those sources of information, then obviously the question to him is this: Why has he not disclosed them to the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer candidly whether he has those sources of information or not, or does he prefer to make attacks on his own Government, the Government he was elected to support, unbacked by any evidence whatsoever?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Surely the important point about any fact stated in this House is whether it is true or false. A private Member has the greatest difficulty in ascertaining the conditions in any foreign country, but a great deal of information is available in this country and was available three years ago when I gave those warnings to the Government. Surely, it is not a very wrong thing to give warnings to the Government, especially if they turn out to be correct. It is hardly a thing to be visited by the malignant style of indictment used by the hon. Member. I have received information from a- great many quarters. I take a great deal of trouble to obtain information from foreign sources. A very large number of people write to me from foreign and neutral countries, and I think it is my duty, as a Member of this House, to be well apprised of these matters. It is true that I apply my own judgment to all this information that I obtain from the people who write to me and elsewhere. The hon. Member calls it guessing. I apply my own judgment, as the Government apply their own judgment also to all the information which they get from their Intelligence Officers. In this case I have applied my judgment, and I think I am right, but in the other case I can hardly say the same thing.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I have asked the right hon. Gentleman a question, and he has not replied. He has given specific

figures again and again, and he has implied, in giving those figures, that he knew what he was talking about. He now says that he gets letters from abroad and that he uses his own judgment in other words, when I say that the alternative is that he has just been guessing, perhaps that is nearer the truth than his suggestion before that he had real information.

Earl WINTERTON: Does the hon. Member remember the speech of the Prime Minister, made a short time ago, in which he admitted that the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and myself in the Debate in November, 1934, were correct?

Mr. HOPKINSON: The noble Lord is referring to 1934. I am referring to much more recent statements by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, and I cannot, it seems, get an answer.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What statements in particular?

Mr. HOPKINSON: As to the exact amount spent over a series of years by the German Government upon armaments.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given the most full account to Parliament upon this subject, with the different calculations on which it was based, calculations which have been challenged, but I am waiting until the various challenges have accumulated before dealing with them. You do not require to have a source for a mathematical calculation. It stands by itself. As a matter of fact, however, I have received advice from very able people, both here and abroad, people who are well acquainted with German finances. Is that wrong? Am I not entitled, as a Member of Parliament, to inquire into these matters, and if I have the information, ought I not to impart it to the House? It may be argued whether it is right or wrong, but I firmly believe it to be right.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I am not concerned with the calculations so much as with the data upon which the calculations are based, which is quite another matter; but apart from these matters, which are after all matters of detail, the speech of


the right hon. Member for Epping tonight sounded to me like a voice from olden times. His conceptions, to my mind, and, I think, to the minds of most of the Members of this House who heard them, are absolutely out of date. He does not seem to realise that we are living, not in 1914–1918, but in the present time. After all, the next war is not going to be won by massed armaments of any sort whatsoever; it is going to be won very largely by professional forces and not by conscript armies or navies. I am simply taking, when I say that, the opinion of the experts upon whom the Government and all of us depend for our information in these matters, and not the opinion of amateur strategists who practised during the early days of the late War.
That brings us back to what I said was the key to the whole position, namely, the quality of the personnel of the Air Force at the present time. I have taken the trouble to spend a lot of time going round all the Air Force depots and training centres, and I am sorry to say that we do seem to be coming almost to the end of our sources of supply of the best type of young men for the Air Force. So far as one can ascertain, the tactics to be adopted by the Air Force in defence of this country, at any rate in the London area, are developing along lines which will demand a quality of personnel beyond anything that has ever been known before in warfare of any kind. The tendency is to give up the old idea, that the only defence against air attack on a civilian population is by terrifying the civilian population of the enemy. That idea is becoming obsolete in the minds of those who are responsible for these matters in our Air Force, and we are going back in some respects to the old tradition of the Army and Navy—the tradition in which we were brought up as young people, the tradition which said that the force which wastes any of its material, or any of its energy, or any of its personnel upon any other objective than the armed forces of the enemy is likely to be beaten sooner or later in any type of warfare. And surely the effective means of defence against air attack on a civilian population is not the counter terrorising of enemy civilian populations, but is the creating of a state of terror in the attacking Air Force that is opposed to us. To-day in this country we have some of

the most scientific and some of the most ingenious brains, and those brains, as is well known, are now fully at the disposal of the Government of the day and of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence.
I venture to say that if an attack were made on us, even within the next day or two, a state of terror could be infused into the attacking air force which would be of far greater value in defence of our civilian population than any form of retaliation or any form of horror that we could bring to bear upon the civilian population of our enemy. I say that our whole effort must be devoted to that end, our whole tactics must be aimed at attacking the attackers, and we must give up once and for all the horrible idea that war in the future must needs be so awful a thing as a war upon civilians and those who cannot defend themselves. I say that if that idea—which was current until quite recently, even among our own armed forces—that war in the future was to be an attack on civilian populations and a terrorising of civilian populations—if that idea is not scotched once and for all, and scotched effectively and practically, if war comes, by our own people through the development of such tactics as I have hinted at to-night, there is no particular reason that I can see for endeavouring to continue the existence of the human race.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. DODD: I recall very clearly the advice which was given from the Chair in regard to the cut and thrust of debate, but if I were to attempt to follow the last speaker, I am afraid that I should be led away from the path which I intend to follow, because the major part of his speech seemed to me to be an attack upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and it seems to me that the latter is well able to defend himself. All hon. Members on this side of the Committee and a good many hon. Members on the other side appreciate very much the lucid speech of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. The whole House appreciates some of the difficulties with which he has been faced during the past two or three months. In taking over a new office with a limited staff he has had to develop new ground and find new methods of obtaining results. He mentioned in his speech that


a great deal depended in defence on our foreign policy, and he wished us to approach the matter in an atmosphere of reality. It is only in an atmosphere of reality that we can approach that matter. While I do not propose to say much in regard to foreign policy, I should like to follow what was said by the Leader of the Liberal Opposition, who declared that it had not been stated against whom we were defending ourselves. I would go a stage further and say that we have not been told whom we are defending. Is it a question of defending ourselves in this country alone, or defending the Empire or defending many other countries?
We have heard a great deal about collective security, but collective security is entirely useless unless it is used in an atmosphere of reality. We cannot as a nation be called to the defence of anybody and everybody. The time has gone when we could stand up before the whole world as defenders of the smallest country in the world. We have to recognise that there are even countries to-day for which we must fight and whose boundaries we must defend, I say quite openly, even before we would defend parts of the Empire. I should like to make one suggestion for what it is worth. It seems to me that before we have progressed very far with the policy of defence we must recognise that we have our limitations, and I hope that we shall define them. I would suggest something similar to the Monroe doctrine of over 100 years ago, which has gone a very long way towards preserving peace in the north and south continents of America. If we had the same sort of doctrine with the Empire and with certain countries where British influence is of paramount importance, we should be making great strides in the direction of ultimate peace.
In the question of defence we have to remember not only the co-ordination of the three Services, but, what is of far more importance, the co-ordination of supply and the preservation of supply of all types, including food and raw materials. The conditions have changed very greatly from what they were 20 years ago, when this country was almost brought to its knees by the losses in our mercantile marine. In those days the danger was from attack from below the water, but to-day a great armed power

with a very strong air force could create a condition of appalling havoc among the mercantile marine, which is necessary to supply this land with the necessities of our very existence. Last week I was at Southampton on a visit to the "Queen Mary," and I recalled how the "Lusitania" was last during the War, through a torpedo. War was unscrupulous then, and it would be so again. To-day, aeroplanes can carry weapons far more effective than the weapons of 20 years ago, and it seemed to me that a majestic ship like the "Queen Mary" would not be impervious to attack from the air.
The point with which I wish to deal more particularly relates to the question of supply. There has been a good deal of criticism of the defence scheme. Any criticism that I make will be made in a spirit of helpfulness. I am particularly anxious, and I said so when I spoke in the Debate on the Defence White Paper, that there should be as little dislocation of industry and labour as possible. I would once again emphasise the fact that while we are anxious to assist the areas which are distressed, we must, above all, watch the movement of labour. This point has been referred to once or twice to-day, and each time it has been on the question of wages. I am not looking at the matter from the point of view of wages. The whole thing carries a much vaster appeal than that. When the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence said that he had not yet found it necessary to intervene or to call in the assistance of the employers or those who are employed, it occurred to me that the time will not be very far distant when it will be absolutely essential that he should do so, not for the purpose of discussing purely the matter of wages, but to discuss with organised labour the whole problem of the movement of labour. It is as much to the detriment of the trade unions to have an uncertain flux of labour as it is to those who have the factories to run.
I have particularly in mind the whole of East Lancashire, which is in a semi-distressed condition. I can only repeat what I said before, that I am afraid there will be a. flow of skilled and semiskilled labour towards the distressed areas and even the prosperous areas from those areas which I call semi-distressed. I will give a case it point. I have had


brought to my notice by an engineering firm in an East Lancashire town a contract placed by the London Passenger Transport Board. Under an Act passed by this House, all things being equal in the quoted price, firms in the distressed areas are to obtain contracts. In this East Lancashire town, where a previous contract for the same plant had been given, there were a greater number of unemployed than in the individual town in the distressed area to which the work had gone. Moreover, the East Lancashire firm which had quoted for the work had laid down at considerable expense a plant for dealing with this material and had obtained previous contracts, but they lost this one purely and simply on the grounds that the work had to go to a distressed area. That may be to the advantage of the distressed area, but it strikes me as very unfair discrimination against that particular Lancashire town, and against a firm which has gone to considerable trouble and expense to provide facilities and to find employment within its own area.
So far as East Lancashire generally is concerned, in the major towns, Manchester, Bolton, Preston, Accrington, Blackburn, Oldham and Rochdale, we have towns which are perfectly capable of catering to a great extent for the work which the Government are able to hand out under the defence programme. I do not think that any of these towns would be particularly jealous if they found that contracts were going to adjoining districts, where it would be possible for men to travel to and from their work. In my own Division during the War 20,000 people were employed in the supply of munitions for the Government, and there is a definite opening in that district where work might be found. In the last 10 years 11,000 people have left that town. Simply because the figures recorded indicate that there is a lesser amount of unemployment than a few years ago it is no indication of the actual position within the town. So far as these particular towns are concerned there are many firms who are very anxious to have Government work, while there are many firms not a bit anxious to have it. Pressure has to be brought upon some firms that can do the work but do not want it.
There are, on the other hand, a vast number of small firms who are quite

capable of doing the work. Most of them are sub-contractors. When they make application for work the type of letter that they receive in reply is an acknowledgment, or a letter saying that at some later date if there is any necessity for making use of their services they will be communicated with. That does not take an enterprising firm very far. I refer particularly to the small firms, who are anxious to do this work. It means that a great deal of the contracts will be given to very large firms, already well established. I consider that these small firms, and particularly the firms manufacturing the types of materials supplied on sub-contracts, should receive consideration. The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) is Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. We can only co-ordinate defence from the point of view of supply by taking the areas and having area representation, with that area representation in due course collected in the centre in London, where the collected knowledge can be brought to bear upon the subject from the point of view of both employers and employed.
Many problems have cropped up since the defence programme was announced. I look with the greatest dissatisfaction on the attitude taken up by certain firms, whose action requires a strong hand from the Minister. There has been a considerable amount of advertising and propaganda by individual firms who are short of operatives. In my own division advertisements have appeared in the Press offering different terms and conditions from those that can be obtained locally. That is unfair to the men and the district. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it means that the men are taken away for a short period and at the end of, say, two years, when the programmes are completed they will be left high and dry, exactly as they were left high and dry at the termination of the Great War. What I have in mind is that by a reasonable and sensible movement of labour, both skilled and unskilled, from one area to another, the problem could be worked out sensibly and reasonably without dislocation on one side or the other.
One further word on the question of supply. Nearly the whole of the time taken in the Debate on Defence has had reference to the engineering industry alone, an industry of which I have con-


siderable knowledge and in which I have considerable interests. I do not, however, consider that engineering is the one industry that has to be recognised as essential for supply. There are thousands of industries throughout the length and breadth of the country that have to be co-ordinated for producing what we want. When the first five-year plan was announced in Russia they put up a most magnificent work for the manufacture of tractors. They completed something like 1,500 tractors, and then found that they had to be left in the yard because they had no radiators to complete them. I am afraid that I can see something of the same sort of thing happening in connection with much of the work that is going forward now. I know of firms in the Midlands to-day which cannot give deliveries of essential parts. They are already two or three months in arrears with their deliveries. I know also that there are firms in my own district standing idle and waiting for work who could do the work equally well.
I should like to say a word for the cotton industry. Here is an opportunity of doing something for an industry which has been very badly hit for a long time. We do not go to war with cotton—I agree that the major requirements are those of engineering—but I am wondering to myself how many divisions of either the Regular Army or the Territorial Force could be sent to any outside theatre of war and placed under canvas at present. From information that I have been given, there is only a very limited amount of canvas available, and I know from my own experience that there is a shortage of webbing equipment and clothing. I am speaking more particularly for the Territorial Army, but it exists throughout. While I appreciate that the Regular Army ought to have the first call upon this equipment, at the same time the Territorials could be provided with better equipment, thus finding work for an industry that is already labouring under extreme difficulty.
There is a point of paramount importance which I do not think I have heard mentioned in any Debates on defence. I wonder whether we have a clear-cut financial policy in case of our being involved in hostilities in any theatre of war? In the last War we borrowed

money for our Allies. We built up a huge debt to America, and in almost every sense of the word we have repudiated it. Could we go to the same people again and ask them to finance any future operations if a condition of war existed? We are not tied to gold and we could not raise the loans which would be essential to conduct those major operations. I have strayed, perhaps, a little from the question of supply, but I am particularly anxious to see these areas of Great Britain return to prosperity, because I believe the prosperous areas are quite capable of looking after themselves, but if Re are going to look upon this matter without any clear-cut plan as to what is to be given to this particular area and to another, we shall fail in what we are attempting to do.
The only logical way to deal with the problem is to send work to the areas where the factories are idle, where there are buildings and equipment and a vast mass of labour. You will find that more particularly in the semi-distressed areas, and the county from which I come is one which should have major consideration. Within 30 miles of Mauchester there are something like 16,000,000 people. It is a corner which has proved in the past to be the backbone of the country, and if they are to be shut out by work being given to areas which are already prosperous we shall not be doing what I believe we should do.

8.5 p.m.

Sir RONALD ROSS: This Debate is in extreme contrast to the state of affairs during the consideration of Service matters some years ago. I do not think I have ever known such a contrast in the general point of view of Members of the House as regards questions of the efficiency of the Defence forces, because the only interest of hon. Members opposite was to get them cut down, to reduce programmes and to make gestures. That was the only thought of the lion that roared so gallantly from the Liberal benches just now—the lion which used to be the lamb. I allude to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). Now he has come round and his motto seems to be, "If you wish for peace prepare for war, and be prepared t. fight." That is a very long distance from the attitude which I think he would like to be able to adopt and which we


should all like to adopt. There are constant suggestions that the Defence forces are inefficient. I do not think they are, but if they should be inefficient a great degree of responsibility lies with those who have been Members of the House for a long time and have never taken any interest in the Defence forces except to criticise them or try to get them reduced.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to me? Again and again I have said that, whatever forces we have should be efficient, and that has been pressed on this side on exactly the same lines as to-day.

Sir R. ROSS: I do not think my glance was resting on the Leader of the Opposition. I quite agree with what he has said. He has always taken the line that such forces as we have should be sufficient, though he has not always told us how they could be made efficient. No one took any interest, except people like the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman sitting next him, who has always taken, from his own Socialist point of view, a very keen and helpful interest in the affairs of the Navy particularly. What is the attitude of the Socialist party to-day? They have, at all events, learned one thing. The Leader of the Opposition has at last apparently appreciated the virtue of coordination. I wish he would start by coordinating the views of his own party, because truculence abroad and a refusal to arm at home do not seem to me very much like co-ordination. Of course, he cannot co-ordinate that part of his party who wish to fight so many different foreign Powers and in so many different interests, but I had hoped that, instead of a speech which seemed to be rather of pinpricks, running into side issues, I should have heard a definite statement of his policy and that of his party on this most important question of the re-armament of the country, because re-armament it is.
We have a fault, and that is that we are always very reluctant to re-arm. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), in saying that we should have re-armed a long time ago, was rather demanding a thing which would have been very difficult to achieve. I have felt for many years that our armaments were dangerously low. Some hon. Members opposite may re-

member my speaking to that effect as long ago as 1929. This country is always reluctant to re-arm. It always hopes for general disarmament, and peace with disarmament. It is a very great fault but not one of which we need be at all ashamed, because it is we who suffer from it, and it is a wish to achieve a better state of things which produces that fault.
To-day we are discusing the task of the new Minister and the Debate seems to me to have one advantage, or disadvantage, that one can discuss on this Vote almost any question under the sun and not be out of order. I should like to address myself to the functions of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. A Minister who is appointed to a new office has a very difficult and responsible task. He has no machinery, he has no precedents and he has a very small staff, which is as new to the job as he is. The great danger, as I see it at present, is that hon. and right hon. Gentleman and the country at large should expect too much from the Minister and his staff. It is a fault that we are always making. We have expected too much from the League of Nations and, to go from the large to the small, the greatest danger is to expect too much from the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. He is no super war lord. He has certain definitely stated obligations and, as far as I can extract them from the White Paper, which is really his charter, they are, first of all, to relieve the Prime Minister, on whom the final responsibility always rests, from the routine duty of acting as Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence and the Defence Policy Committee. He has, secondly, the power of consultation with the Chiefs of Staff. He can in an emergency be present at their meetings and he is Chairman of the Supply Officers Committee. Implicitly it would appear that he is also responsible for the co-ordination of all the Departments which are primarily concerned with the problems of defence.
I should deplore any attempt being made to rule the Service Ministries from his office. I do not think that is his function, and I do not think that he would say that it is his function, because the responsibility for the efficient running of the various Departments is that of the heads of those Departments and not that of the Minister for the Co-ordina-


tion of Defence. I would ask hon. Members to consider what would follow from asking him to impose his will on the actual running of the different Departments. You would have a diarchy. It is not for nothing that the Minister is called the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. If he were driven to constantly interfering with the various Services you would not have a Minister for the Coordination of Defence but a Minister for the confusion of defence, which would make the state of affairs worse than it is now. His duty is to be the friend and the conciliatory authority of all the Ministries that are concerned with defence.
A very good instance of his duties, as I see them, is the question of considering the Fleet Air Arm. It is a point that affects two Ministries very vitally, and I am sure his assistance will be very helpful, and I would ask the Government whether, in considering that problem, they would not leave out the question of flying-boats. It is a matter of detail, but it is a very important detail. The rather anomalous situation has arisen that the type of aircraft that is the most seaworthy and the most exclusively used over the sea is entirely under the Air Ministry and is not affected by the orders of those with whom it would have to work, that is, the sailors. I hope that that question will be considered with the other questions.

Wing-Commander JAMES: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that for tactical purposes the flying boats are not under the control of the Admiralty?

Sir R. ROSS: My hon. Friend has introduced the phrase" for tactical purposes." In tactical purposes lies the catch because, although they are subject to Naval orders, he knows as well as I do, that they come under the Air Ministry, and he knows with what vigour the Air Ministry defend their rights with regard to flying-boats. I am not taking any line one way or the other, but I am saying that it is a, matter for inquiry by the proper authority. I was taking that as a typical instance—and there are many other instances—and I hope that we shall find a solution which will be equally agreeable to my hon. Friend and myself. I pass to a more general question.
An expression was used by the right hon. Gentleman during his speech, to which I listened with great interest, which rather surprised me. He alluded to his duty to preside at the Chiefs of Staff Committee. I have the White Paper in my hand, and as I understand it, that is a committee over which he is not intended to preside, except in rather exceptional circumstances. I should be very interested to know what the position is. He has a, very useful function in connection with the Chiefs of Staff Committee, because they can come to him for his assistance. When there are points of difficulty upon which they wish to agree among themselves, should they wish for his assistance, they can always get it.
But there is danger in putting the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence in the position of being chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, because all the questions which they consider are predominantly technical questions. I can assure hon. Members that, if they think that the Chiefs of Staff Committee is a sort of fight for strict party interests, they are entirely wrong. These very distinguished Service heads of Departments work out solutions among themselves, and it is their duty to do this work. They work in very close touch and harmony, and if you had a civilian head as chairman of that Committee he obviously could not be as well informed technically. It might easily lead to the soldier, sailor or airman being far more inclined to run the technical side on the strict party case, feeling that he was relieved of the duty of having to make a decision or to come to an agreement. I have always thought that that was a very wise feature of the White Paper, and I hope that I am right in thinking that the Chiefs of Staff are to be left to themselves to a considerable extent.
There was one part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping in which he described the many problems which the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence would have to consider. I think that for the moment he was forgetting—he does not often forget matters connected with the Services—the existence of the Planning Committee. It is one of the most useful pieces of machinery for National Defence and would, at all events, have to consider a large number of the questions


which he put to the Committee to-day. They are to have three new officers. I should be very interested to know whether these new officers on the staff of the Joint Planning Committee will live in their separate Departments, or whether they will live at the Ministry of Defence or in the same office. It is of great importance that officers of different Services working on a joint task, that of producing a co-ordinated plan, should, if possible, be in such close contact with one another as could only be obtained by living in the same office.
The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A, Sinclair) spoke of the important task of the fusing of the Defence policy. That is a task which is really beyond the scope of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and, to use the vivid phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, the fusing of the Defence policy is surely a matter of education rather than of the Minister doing it by coercion from above. The greatest need of the armed forces of this country is a common staff doctrine. If we had a common staff doctrine, the same set of factors similarly appreciated by soldier, sailor and airman, we should have gone incredibly far along the course of co-ordination.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the weight he attaches to the Imperial Defence College. I think that that institution was the most valuable step which has been taken on the educational side of the Defence system of this country in this generation, and I am delighted to see that there is to be an addition to its secretariat. The Imperial Defence College has had a most successful career. I have always wondered whether its small staff—and it is very small—is quite sufficient, although the students of that institution take a large share in educating one another by their experience, because they are all either officers or civil servants of considerable experience. Now that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness is present, I wish to say that he really rather startled me in his speech. I allude to that portion of his speech in which he dealt particularly with the Navy. He was alluding to its expense. Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that the vast bulk of the increased cost of the Navy is due to the increase in the pay of the sailors

and marines, and in the wages paid to the workmen who build ships.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The difficulty which the hon. Gentleman had in following my argument was perhaps due to the fact that, on the one hand, I was taking up my argument with the Noble Lord in charge of the Naval Estimates. When I made the comparison between pre-war expenditure and post-war expenditure, I did make considerable allowances for those factors which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and the Noble Lord was good enough to acknowledge that I had made such allowances. He then suggested a deduction of one-third from the present expenditure to bring it into line with pre-war expenditure. In my argument to-day I was making a deduction of one-third in order to compare the Estimates of 1914–15 with the Estimates for the current year of £70,000,000, which was the figure the Noble Lord himself suggested.

Sir R. ROSS: The right hon. Gentleman was fair in that he only dealt with the effective charges, whereas normally anyone who is criticising the expenditure on our Defence services generally includes the pensioners and the non-effective services. But, nevertheless, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has made allowance for the question of wages to those who build and construct ships. Dockyard wages since 1914 have risen enormously, and he will agree that the rise in the pay of 140,000 men means a considerable increase in expenditure. There is this further point, that the smaller the ship the more expensive it is per ton. The cost per ton of a submarine is nearly double that of a battleship. There is also an infinite number of scientific instruments which have been added to the equipment of modern ships, and that has increased the cost of building. In the days before the War the fitting of a ship was not such a scientific matter as it is now.
The right hon. Member rather surprised me when he complained about the standard of naval strength. If there is one force whose strength is regulated on a basis which he and his friends can approve, it is the Navy. Its present strength is strictly regulated by international agreements with all the major naval Powers. Being strictly regulated we find ourselves criticised by the right hon. Member for Epping because we are


sticking to a Treaty which hon. Members made in 1930, and it is the only one of the three Services which up to the end of this year is based strictly on-inter-national agreements. As far as I know, the new suggestion in the White Paper is to replace battleships when they become obsolete. The right hon. Member opposite objects to the big battleship, but that is too long a matter to argue now, and I will therefore address myself to the functions of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Coordination of Defence in his new office. As I see it, his function is not to suggest or to provide schemes for the Departments. That is the Departments' responsibility. If he thinks that something is required of them he can notify them that he would like to know what they propose to do. But his duty is to make one scheme fit into another until we get a well articulated whole. Otherwise, there is the danger, that if things were to go wrong the right hon. Gentleman might become the scapegoat of the Departments. They might manage to foist their work on to him. Therefore, his functions are limited to co-ordination, and to pointing out such defects in general organisation which need filling up.
Let me just deal with the question of construction and supply, which is probably the most important anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman at present. Among the considerations which we have to bear in mind are the vulnerability of the site, and the needs of the Special Areas. An hon. Member has put forward the claims of Lancashire. I come from a part of the country which is also engaged in the textile trade, and I have a great deal of sympathy with his plea: But I would urge that on the question of vulnerability there is no part of the United Kingdom which can compete with Northern Ireland as regards the difficulty of attacking it in a European wars especially if that war was principally a war in the air. It is the least vulnerable part of the United Kingdom. It is not a depressed area. We have managed to contribute a larger sum to the National Exchequer this year than last year, but at the same time it is an industrial area which is going through a

period of considerable depression. Its two main trades, linen and shipbuilding, are both depressed. I think sometimes that we have not always got our fair share. Northern Ireland was expressly excluded from the benefits of the Shipping Bill. It has always built the fleet of the White Star, but now it is the Cunard-White Star Company and, apparently, their ships are going to be built principally elsewhere.
When I think of the Clyde, also an area which from the point of view of vulnerability is favourably placed, and the 100 ships which they have been given to build since the war, whereas Belfast has only had one, and that a small one, I consider that we have not been unduly spoilt. I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that Northern Ireland produces the highest proportion of recruits of any recruiting area in the United Kingdom. We give our men, and all I ask is that this area should be allotted work, that we should be allowed to do some of the work for a Service in which our people are prepared to serve. Providing as we do a larger number of recruits than any area in this country, it would certainly be grossly unfair if we were not given our due share of the work of providing the implements or weapons which they have to use as soldiers, sailors or airmen.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: The hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), in the course of his speech, as is usual in speeches in this House, was very generous in his advice to those who sit on these benches. He suggested that if we believe in co-ordination we should first of all endeavour to co-ordinate our own Members. May I extend that advice to him and ask him to use his very great influence to co-ordinate the views of hon. Members on his side of the House? We have had an example this evening of the co-ordination and the unity of thought among hon. Members opposite, and I would remind the hon. Baronet of the episodes of Monday and Tuesday of this week. I would ask him to consider certain Members of the Front Bench opposite and see how far they differ on policy.
The hon. Baronet referred to the cutting down of programmes and the in-


efficiency of the Fighting Services. From the amount of criticism that has been levelled against hon. Members on this side of the House, one would imagine that we had been charged with the responsibility of governing this country for the last 10, 15 or 20 years. With the exception of three short years—nine months in 1924 and from 1929–1931—the Government of this country has been in the hands of people holding the same political views as those who occupy the Front Bench opposite at the present time. If there is any inefficiency in the Fighting Forces and if there has been any cutting down of programmes, it is those who share the views of the hon. Baronet and the majority of those on the Government Benches, who are entirely responsible.

Sir R. ROSS: I would like to ask my hon. Friend one question. During the last Government he spoke on every occasion on the Navy Estimates. Throughout that time did he ever criticise the Navy Estimates from any point of view except that they were too large?

Mr. HALL: I criticised them because I thought the money was not spent as it ought to have been spent.

Sir R. ROSS: And because too much was spent.

Mr. HALL: It must be remembered that since 1920 a sum of no less than £850,000,000 has been spent simply upon naval armaments in this country. I was very interested to hear the hon. Baronet speak of the increased wages bill and the increased cost of construction. Of course, there has been an increase in the wages bill, but there has been a tremendous reduction in the number of employés in the dockyards and in the personnel of the Navy. If the hon. Baronet will read the Report of the May Committee, he will see what it says about some aspects of the construction of certain ships. It made a recommendation that a committee should be appointed to investigate certain costs in connection with the construction of ships for the Navy.

Sir R. ROSS: The May Committee dealt entirely with the work of the hon. Member's own Board of Admiralty.

Mr. HALL: The May Committee dealt with the actual cost of construction.

Sir R. ROSS: Under the Labour Government.

Mr. HALL: I do not know that we paid any more than the Governments which preceded or followed us. I do not propose to take up very much of the tune of the Committee. The general case of hon. Members on this side was very well stated by the Leader of our party. He put our position clearly, and there is no need for us to deal with that aspect further. I think I may say that we were all very depressed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). It was certainly one of the most depressing speeches to which I have listened. In the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, war is inevitable, and he almost fixed the date—in three or four years from now we are to be engaged in the most devastating, devilish conflict the world has ever seen. I would much prefer to believe in the attitude of the Leader of my party and the attitude expressed in the closing sentences of the Leader of the Liberal party. I think there is still a deal of good sense in the people of this country, and I hope that, although we have a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, whatever is being done now will not be required on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Co-ordination of Defence has now been in his new job for two months. His is not an easy task as was indicated by his speech. He told us very little of the co-ordination of the Services, the inter-linking of the work of the Navy, the Air Force and the Army. That in itself would be the work of a superman. The right hon. Gentleman confined himself very largely to what may be regarded as the supply side. He referred to certain investigations which are taking place—the committee which is investigating the bombing of the battleship and whether the battleship can stand up to bombing, and the committee considering the question of food in war-time. He then went on to deal with the industrial changes which will be necessary to provide the ammunition and arms which may be required in the event of an emergency. One of the most disappointing things in this Debate is that every hon. and right hon. Member has forgotten the importance of what I consider to be one of


the most essential things for the defence of this country, that is, fuel. The right hon. Gentleman himself did not evvn mention it, and is is very evident from what he told the Committee that no action is being taken by the Government at the present time to deal with this very important matter.

Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. Member says it is very evident, but I would like to correct his understanding on this point, because it is a misapprehension that nothing is being done in connection with fuel. There is a special committee on it. I should have detained the Committee too long if I had dealt with the whole of the activities of the Committee on Imperial Defence.

Mr. HALL: All I would say is that the matter seems not to be regarded as sufficiently important to warrant mention of it by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not only the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, but the statement made by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on the Naval Estimates that I have in mind. I would also refer to the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman himself to a question which was put to him yesterday concerning the suggestion that additional plant should be erected for the purpose of producing oil in this country. It will, I think, be generally admitted that this country and our Allies could not have succeeded in the last War without British coal, not only for the use of the Navy but for shipping, general transport and industries. Coal is essential in almost every aspect of our national life. In the next war it may be that the exhaustion of the supplies of liquid fuel will decide the great issues involved. Fuel is, and always has been, a vital factor in war-time, as vital indeed as food and munitions. The air arm cannot function without liquid fuel; we depend on oil fuel for the Navy and merchant shipping, as well as for our mechanised Army. This has created problems of defence to which all pre-1913 soldiers and sailors are strangers. I think it was Napoleon who said that an army marched on its stomach. It might be said to-day that the fighting forces of the world could not march without the petrol pump.
In regard to the development of air forces for either defence or attack, there

is no alternative for liquid fuel. I was almost going to say that this development in the use of oil as fuel is a bad thing. One almost feels that it is a pity that the oil resources of the world do not dry up, but I suppose some other form of fuel would be found to do the work which is nom being done by oil. This is however a serious aspect of the question for this country. We have an abundance of the best coal in the world which can be used of itself, or converted into other forms of fuel. But, as far as we know, there is little or no oil in this country and the same can be said of the whole British Empire. I think only some 2 per cent. of the known oil resources of the world are to be found in the British Empire yet here we are in this country, dependent on oil for our Navy, our Air Force, our mechanised Army, our merchant shipping and our transport, producing just 4 per cent. of the oil which we require for our own use and importing 96 per cent., the major portion of which has to be brought over 3,000 miles to this country. The situation is very serious. Last year we imported no less than 2,500,000,000 gallons of oil for all purposes. At the risk of repetition, I would emphasise our view that the Government are not alive to the desperate nature of the position.
As far as the coal industry is concerned, one feels nowadays that people are beginning to think and even to legislate in terms of a diminishing coal industry. In my opinion, any sound programme of defence ought to contemplate not a diminishing but an expanding coal industry. We may have oil reserves in tanks but we have an abundance of coal in our coal fields and I hope the right hon. Gentleman is taking into consideration the importance of that matter. We have not been told definitely the total cost of the defence programme for which the right hon. Gentleman's office has been brought into being but estimates in certain well-informed newspapers suggest that it will cost anything from £250,000,000 to £300,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman in reply to a question yesterday suggested that we could produce from 10 hydrogenation plants for the extraction of petrol from coal, something like 1,500,000 tons of petrol or nearly half the present peace-time supply.
Is it not worth while considering this question? If we can afford to spend up to £300,000,000 upon instruments of war—which would be no use if the country's oil supplies were cut off—is it not worth while spending the amount which the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned yesterday in that reply in order to deal with oil production in this country on the lines which have been suggested? I am not going into the question of different processes. It may be argued that the Burgess process of hydrogenation is in the hands of one large influential company and that it would be impossible to develop plant in other parts of the country without the consent of Imperial Chemical Industries who control the patents of the Burgess process. But there are other processes and it is worth while considering those other processes both of hydrogenation and of low-temperature carbonisation.
Not only do I desire to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the question of providing oil by the methods that we on this side have suggested times out of number, but I would ask him what steps his Department and the Government are taking to prevail upon industrialists and large users of fuel to use coal instead of oil where possible. He must know that 95 to 96 per cent. of road transport in this country, commercial and passenger, is now being carried out by oil-driven vehicles. In my division during the last five years we have lost a market for nearly 600,000 tons of coal owing to what may be regarded as an administrative action of the Ministry of Transport in making it almost impossible for steam waggons to run on the roads. I am not suggesting that the steam waggons of 10 years ago are as suitable as some of the oil-driven vehicles of to-day but the more modern steam waggons are almost as suitable as the very heavy oil-driven vehicles. Two collieries in my division have been closed as the result of thousands of these steam waggons being taken off the road. Then there is the question of tramway companies and municipalities scrapping tramway systems and replacing them, not by trolley omnibuses using electricity, which is a product of coal, but by oil-driven vehicles. The right hon. Gentleman should do all he possibly can in an endeavour to induce industrialists and the

owners of vehicles to use coal or the product of coal wherever possible.
Then there is the question of merchant shipping. A large proportion of that which is owned by this country is oil-fired instead of being driven by coal, and a large proportion of the fishing fleet and the tramp steamers use oil, too. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman could take up the question of dual firing if we cannot get a good deal of the new shipping construction to use coal instead of oil. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government in the development of works on the lines which he mentioned, have given some thought to the Special Areas. I am glad to think that they have at last come to recognise their responsibility for a good deal of the difficulties with which the Special Areas are confronted. He said that he could not go into details. I come from one of the worst areas, that of South Wales, where we have 40 to 50 per cent. of our insured persons unemployed, a large proportion of whom have been unemployed for periods of not less than five years, and some even for something like eight to 10 years.
The position is becoming so acute that large employers openly declare that, in the event of anything like a restoration of trade where the services of these men —who are not only aged men, but middle-aged and young men—would be required, it would be almost impossible for them to do the work they would be called upon to do owing to the fact that they have been out of work for so long and have suffered from lack of nourishment and food. For all that, we should encourage the bringing of work into some of these areas, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether, in the programme that he mentioned, South Wales is being considered and, if so, where the location of the work is to be. The principal thing on which I rose to address the Committee was the important question of fuel. The Government will have to face this matter. If an emergency arose within the next month or two, I have no doubt that the Government would spend hundreds of millions of pounds in endeavouring to secure a supply of oil in our own country. It would not be a question of economics. During the later years of the War the Admiralty were spending no less than


£14 per ton for fuel oil for the Fleet, and even then it was almost impossible to get it. We have in our own land a commodity which, if it is properly used, could give us a supply of oil which the country needs. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take this important matter into his consideration.

8.59 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: I feel that we are extremely grateful to the Liberal party for having given us the opportunity of this Debate on such an important subject. It is rather unfortunate for the Liberal party that on the day they put down this question the party opposite should he putting down a dinner. While we are debating the co-ordination of defence, the party opposite, I understand, is engaged at dinner in debating the co-ordination of the Conservative party. Although we may not have made much progress so far in the co-ordination of defence, the right hon. Gentleman's efforts in that direction are likely to be crowned with far more success than the efforts of those who are trying to coordinate the Conservative party under its present leadership.
I listened with deep attention and interest to the right hon. Gentleman, and the main impression left upon my mind is that he is now investigating matters which ought to have been investigated long ago. He said that he was considering the question of food supplies in war. That is in 1936, just after the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in introducing his Budget that we can "feel the flames in our faces"—flames which he hopes to put out by 2d. on the Tea Duty. It is rather late in the day to wait until you feel the flames in your faces before beginning to consider the question of food supplies in time of war. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was considering such questions as merchant shipping, anti-aircraft defence and the defence of the civilian population. May I ask whether he has initiated the consideration of these questions, or is he only taking up investigations which he found in progress when he assumed office? Running through the whole of his speech was the clear admission that the Coordinating Minister is concerning himself with supply and man-power and not with

questions of strategy. It is a remarkable thing that while the Government decline to appoint a Minister of Supplies, they appoint what ought to have come second, namely, a coordinating Minister, and then proceed to overload him with questions of supply.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) said that there was a complete failure to give us any vivid picture of the questions at issue. I share the hon. Baronet's feeling of regret that on such vital issues as that of our policy in the Far East, the question of the new developments in the Mediterranean, and t he battleship controversy, we get no such vivid pictures, no such clear presentment of the problems, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) could certainly have given us had these questions arisen while he was First Lord of the Admiralty. Instead of vivid pictures enabling us to get a clear grasp of the fundamental points at issue, we get these imperfect recitations of something which has been written by the Staff—that is, if we get anything at all. As I am fortunate enough at the moment to be speaking in the presence of both the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and of my own leader, may I say that I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention to that part of the speech of my right hon. Friend in which he emphasised the necessity for consulting junior ranks in the Service and, in particular, to his remark about the older men being out of date? These remarks hold good as regards the back-benchers in politics as well as for the junior members of the Services.
Reference has been made to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping made rather a depressing speech to-night. I thought that he was in a subdued mood and let the Minister off a little lightly, but I am not so sure that he was depressing as that he was alarmist. We know his incapacity to resist the use of adjectives; the main feature of his speeches is that he invariably uses three adjectives where one would be too many. He certainly was alarmist to-night, and I was surprised to hear that he had bean bitten by this idea of invasion from the air. In that respect we can safely say that the words of Moltke still hold true. When Moltke was

.
asked if it was possible to carry out an invasion of this country he said: "It certainly is. I could do it. My only difficulty would be to get the men back again." As regards the Government's defence plan and the duties of the Coordinating Minister, I think the principal objection to them is that no single authority emerges for the consideration of war measures as a whole. The proposals do not face up to the essential necessity for one man being responsible for plans and for the functions of the Services, while at the same time being in effective control of the means of dealing with the vital questions of industry and of manpower, upon which the whole business of a future war is going to turn. I quote from the White Paper:
The Prime Minister's deputy is only given supervision and control on the Prime Mi nister's behalf.
The preparation of reports to the Cabinet and the right to make recommendations.
He may "consult" and "guide" the Chiefs of Staff Committee, but the only independent job given to him is to replace the President of the Board of Trade as chairman of the Principal Supply Officers sub-committee. There is no definition in the White Paper of any executive authority given to him as chairman of this sub-committee and there is no alteration of any substance to the Chiefs of Staff sub-committee, and its defects, to which attention has repeatedly been called both inside and outside the House, remain unaltered. The proposals, to my mind, show no courage in facing the problem. They are a shuffle and a compromise. They leave the existing condition of divided responsibility, which results in lack of co-ordination, unaltered except in detail, and they show in their loose wording and poor drafting every sign of having been hastily botched together as a result of pressure in the House of Commons. They totally fail to satisfy public opinion or to give any confidence in this Government or the Prime Minister to carry out the task of co-ordination and rearmament.
Co-ordination is not enough. We want a Minister free of all routine work able to view the problems involved as an indivisible whole and to be responsible for the production of Defence plans, and for equipment and supply, while leaving the Service Departments responsible for

internal administration but not for strategy. But the main defect is that the co-ordinating Minister has got advisory powers only, and the Prime Minister specifically retains responsibility for directing co-ordination of Defence while he has admitted that the pressure of work prevents him from doing that very job. It is my experience, and I think it will be that of most hon. Members, that you cannot devolve responsibility upon a deputy. If you are responsible you must do the job yourself, or run the risk of a very serious breakdown of your plans. Moreover, with all respect to the Minister, I must say that a first-rate man will not play second fiddle. A man who has anything in him wants to have a job of his own and to be allowed to get on with it without having to run to somebody else to report at every turn.
There is one particular question that I should like to take rather beyond where the right hon. Member for Epping left it, and to which I hope very much some reply may be given in the course of this Debate. I want to take the question of the Mediterranean a step further than it has been taken to-night. We used to conduct all our naval policy on the basis of a friendly Japan and a friendly Italy. We have now converted one of these countries into a hostile and formidable Power, and both these countries have got plans for expansion to which we constitute an obstacle. I want to deal mainly with the Mediterranean. Our policy must, of course, remain dominated by the necessity for control of the Channel ports and of the Mediterranean route to the Far East. At the immediate moment I think the problem of the Mediterranean is the one which is urgent. It is our route to India, China, Australia and New Zealand, those four great treasure houses. Let us reflect upon the value of our trade with those four Continents: India £80,000,000 a year, Australia £50,000,000, China, £26,000,000. Zinc, rubber, wool, hemp, manganese, tin, oil, food—all these necessities come home along this route through the Mediterranean, and that trade can be assured only if we have control of that sea.
I should not like to have to answer a question as to the ultimate effect of air power upon sea power, but one thing is obvious, and that is that air power is going to change completely the nature and character of naval operations. A


power which is weak at sea can nevertheless, if she has superior air force, control the neighbourhood of her coast and can defend her sea communications up to the effective range of her aircraft. The Mediterranean is a very suitable field of operations for submarines. It is extremely deep, which renders the task of dealing with submarines by means of mines practically impossible. During the War 10 submarines in the Mediterranean were able to sink shipping at the rate of 150,000 tons a month. The menace is increased now by air force, the submarines being able to shepherd convoys of merchant ships into the right position for the bombers to attack them.
In the circumstances what is the real opinion of the staffs about the situation in the Mediterranean and our power to control that sea? Unless our main Fleet were destroyed I do not know that we need be in any anxiety about the defence of Gibraltar, I do not know that the loss of Malta would necessarily be a mortal blow, but the Suez Canal is our spinal cord for that trade with the East, and we now have to consider a hostile Italy with air and submarine bases in Sicily, in Sardinia, in the Dodecanese Islands and established, now, in Africa, at the other end of the Red Sea. We have to guard both sides of the Canal. Palestine, Arabia and Egypt are all vital to that defence, and it is notorious that propaganda on the part of a Power which hopes to see the end of our domination in the Mediterranean is rife in those countries. With this threat to us in the Mediterranean how could we send naval forces to the Far East with any safety or security?
I wish to reiterate, to lay emphasis upon, this particular question of how we can maintain our trade route through the Mediterranean in the event of our being at war with Italy. Very likely we should have to abandon Malta at first. The Fleet might have to go cruising, as our Fleet went cruising in 1914 when it had no suitable defended base. We might, and probably should, eventually recover Malta, but what would happen meanwhile if the Fleet were, as I say, cruising? What about repairs and refitting? We may be able to develop some temporary alternative base, but it is impossible to improvise ship-repairing facilities. Is the Minister prepared to say that this question has been examined and that decision

has been come to that, if we are at war with Italy, we can maintain our trade route through the Mediterranean? If we cannot maintain it, what is the point of putting in more money in an attempt to develop defences which the combined staffs would possibly think not adequate to the job These questions require the most careful consideration, and unless the staffs are prepared to give some assurance in regard to the trade route through the Mediterranean we should begin at once, I suggest, to consider the development of the route by way of the Cape. Even though delays might be involved, it is far better to rely upon a route to the Far East that will be secure than to rely upon a, quicker and more convenient but insecure route.
I think all hon. Members will agree with me that we are living in anxious days of very grave issues and, unfortunately, of very great humiliation for this country. We have touched bottom in our foreign policy, at a moment when our Defence plan and organisation appear to be in chaos. I do not advocate waste of time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping asked the Government what is the object of delay? I do not think the Government have anything half so dignified as an object. I think their delay is merely futility, a reluctance to face the problems and an inability to think them out. These problems cannot he ignored for ever. The days are so serious that I would like to urge once again that we do not delay until next year to summon an Imperial Conference. I should like to see the Dominion Prime Ministers summoned here at once to a conference to settle the future foreign policy of the Commonwealth arid to agree upon the defence plans necessary to fulfil that policy. This is the moment when we should take counsel with all those with whom we may in the future have to act. The world would not be slow to mark and to appreciate what would be implied in such a drawing together of ourselves and the Dominions at this juncture, to consider the course which we are to steer through the very rough weather which lies ahead of us.

9.19 p.m.

Wing - Commander JAMES: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will excuse me if I do not follow the points he made in his speech. So much of the


speech as was related to the White Paper I would not dispute. The speech which preceded it from the Opposition Front Bench dealt with fuel, and I thought it might very well have been delivered on the Ministry of Mines Vote. I want for a few minutes to refer again to defence. The Minister for the Coordination of Defence naturally devoted almost the whole of his speech, as he no doubt has directed a great part of his attention, to the supply side of his work. The Minister shakes his head, but he devoted a great part of his speech to the supply side. I am prepared to concede that some of us who were young enough, or old enough, as may be, to be caught in the last War, may over emphasise the importance of the strategic side. I was very glad that the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) brought the Debate back to the strategic problems of co-ordination. Such references to the co-ordination of strategy as the Minister made I found extremely remarkable. He said, for example, that it was his job to keep "in touch with" the Chiefs of Staff sub-committee. I think I am quoting him fairly. Merely keeping in touch with the committee would hardly be the way to co-ordinate its work. He made another reference, which horrified me, to the joint general staff and the demand that had been made by many hon. Members, including myself several times, for the creation of a joint general staff" whatever it is," as he said. I want to know how that reference can be squared with the specific assurances that were given by the Secretary of State for Air, who said, speaking in a place to which I must not refer in detail, that the object of the creation of the post the Minister now holds was the Government's wish to give the country what it needed, a great general staff, in the truest and fullest sense of the word.

Sir T. INSKIP: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will quote the Noble Lord's words, which had a particular meaning. What Lord Swinton said should be given verbally and textually as he said it.

Wing-Commander JAMES: I thought I was sailing rather near the wind even in quoting from memory what was said in another place, but if the Chairman will permit me I will certainly quote the

actual words from the OFFICIAL REPORT. I will hand it to the Minister immediately I have read it. I do not know how far back to start so as to give the whole sense of the passage. I will read the whole sentence. The Minister said:
I have spoken, it is true, of a combined staff. Perhaps I have used a technical term I should not have used. But I have used it because there is in the mind and intention of all of us that all those who work on this joint planning, the Chiefs of Staffs sitting in committee, the Joint Planning Committee working to them, these new officers and the Imperial Defence College who will be working together, reinforced, if need be, as experience shows to be necessary in the future, will give us what we do need, which is a great General Staff in the truest and fullest sense of the word.
I do not think I spoke even from memory. I quoted his words. The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence referred to "a joint general staff, whatever it is." I ask how he can explain his slighting reference to the joint general staff, "whatever it is," in view of the Minister's specific assurances?

Sir T. INSKIP: It is very unfortunate to have a discussion here about what has been said in another place. My hon. and gallant Friend keeps referring to the phrase, "a joint general staff." What the Noble Lord said was, "a great general staff in the truest and fullest sense of the word." The Noble Lord referred exactly to the position of things which existed in the organisation as I know it to be.

Wing-Commander JAMES: I used the words "joint general staff."

Sir T. INSKIP: My hon. and gallant Friend does not seem to see that that makes the whole difference to the point of his argument.

Wing-Commander JAMES: Does it make a difference? In all the discussion which preceded the appointment of the Minister the word "joint" was always used, and I thought that it conveyed the same sense in the speech in the other place. The Minister referred also to the joint planning committee. That was referred to also by the Home Secretary in the Debate in which the present Minister's function was established, and I complained then—and I complain now—that the joint planning committee in its present form is no substitute for a joint


or a great general staff, because it is a body of departmental officers who in their function are little more than devils to the Chiefs of Staff sub-committee. May I mention one or two points which support the creation of a Joint General Staff? The present system of the Committee of Imperial Defence working through the Chiefs of Staff sub-committee has not proved adequate in the past. That is admitted by the appointment of the present Minister, and surely the events in the last six months in the Middle East bear witness to that fact. There has been lack of co-ordination of the plans of the three Services.
Surely the very powerful letters in the "Times" from ex-chiefs of staff who have written to that paper have made it quite clear that the deliberations of the Chiefs of Staff committee have not been harmonious and that it has not functioned as a joint staff. Very grave anxieties exist in the three Services about the joint planning at the top, which does so need strengthening. I do not want to be accused of merely destructive criticism, so let me say in a sentence what I think we need. What we need is a small thinking staff from the three Services, detached from departmental duties, supported by a member of the Foreign Office divorced from daily routine, to advise the Minister and the Government on general strategic matters and problems. However efficient we make our supplies side, it is the strategic direction of our Forces that in the long run would make for success. In conclusion may I refer to a different matter? The hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) has had close association with the Admiralty, arid he thought that co-ordination was a splendid thing provided the Navy was not touched. His whole demand was, "Hands off the Navy."

Sir R. ROSS: I want the status of the Fleet Air Arm to be completely altered.

Wing-Commander JAMES: One simply cannot let pass some of the things which have been said in this House lately by the hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry and some of his friends. A reference too which the new Minister made to the Naval Air Arm, in reply to the

right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) the other day. I found rather disturbing. There are four facts which cannot be denied by those persons who are now agitating for a splitting up of the Air Force. First, the whole cost of the Fleet Air Arm is borne by the Admiralty. There has been no financial inducement to the Air Ministry to stint the Navy because the Navy was paying. Second, and arising out of that, no demand has been made by the Admiralty on the Air Ministry for machines, equipment or stores which has not been met. If deficiencies existed that was due to general financial stringency and not to the system. Third, the Admiralty has full control of the Fleet Air Arm for operational purposes. Lastly, this subject has been investigated time and again, and the result of those investigations has been announced in the House, over and over again. They have shown that there was no substance in the demand by the Admiralty for a step so reactionary as the splitting up of the Air Force.
I do not say that the present position is perfect and that no change is possible. All I trust is that the Minister will see that this horrid controversy is not again allowed to impair the efficiency of the two Services, and that that small section of naval opinion which has refused to accept Government policy for years past shall accept Government policy, and that such changes as are necessary shall be obtained by gradual evolution and not reaction. Good feeling is growing up between the Services and when some other individuals come to take their rest—I am not referring to the hon. Member for Londonderry—this controversy will die a natural death. The new Minister said that his close season was over and that he was due to be shot at. I found him very strong on the wing to-day, but I thought he flew in the wrong direction so far as co-ordination was concerned. In future I hope that he will give rather more encouragement to those of us who are anxious about the question of joint planning of policy between the three Services.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. W. ROBERTS: I want to address only a very few remarks to the Committee, and those on a subject which has not been discussed by any Member other than the new Minister. I, therefore, do


not apologise for referring to the matter, because I regard it as one of great importance, and it is the question of food supplies. Some of us remember the difficult times towards the end of the last War, and I think that on any basis of calculation that we can adopt we must assume that those difficulties will be increased in the event of another war in the near future. The quantity of available merchant shipping is reduced to-day, and not only is that the case, but there will be a greater demand on that shipping. Reference has been made to oil, most of which is imported, and it will have to be brought here by the reduced quantity of available shipping; and, although agricultural production in this country has risen in the last few years, and substantially in the last two or three years, the fact remains that we have to import at least half our foodstuffs, and that importation of foodstuffs will not only be at the risk of submarines, but also, now, at the very much greater risk of attack from the air.
I was very glad to hear the Minister refer to the committee which he has set up, and I want to put before him a few matters which I think ought to be considered in connection with our food policy in time of crisis. Recommendations are being made that the one vital thing is to extend the acreage of wheat in this country, but I believe that to be absolutely wrong. It is the hoary old ghost of British agriculture which has arisen again at this moment. Wheat production in this country cannot be as effective in time of peace as the cultivation of other crops to which our climate is suited, and, without dwelling on the matter at length, I would press upon the Government that the right and reasonable policy is to store at least six months' supply of wheat in elevators or in silos, if possible underground, in this country. I think the Minister referred to that question in his opening remarks. It is a simple question, and I am certain that money spent in that way would be well spent.
To return to the question whether the policy of the Government should be directed to increasing the wheat acreage in this country, I would suggest that there is another principle by which the Government should be influenced. The position of agriculture is in some ways

very similar to that of industry. We want to organise industry so that at the outbreak of a war it may be possible to turn the peace-time production into the production of war material, and I suggest that that is exactly the position at which we want to arrive in agriculture. It may be necessary in time of war to produce a greater quantity of cereals within this country, but to produce more cereals now is an expensive and wasteful business for the country as a whole. I do not want to enter into the arguments which are being put forward that to grow vegetables will be of no value in war-time—that an army cannot exist on lettuces; but agricultural land which is producing vegetables can be turned very quickly to growing wheat or other cereals should the occasion arise.
The principal point that I wish to make is that it is vital to keep agricultural land in this country in a fertile condition, and that, if the land is fertile, it does not matter very much what it is growing in peace-time; it can be used for growing wheat, potatoes, oats or anything else that may be required when the time comes. In this connection I would remind the Committee that farming in England consists very largely of grass farming. Two-thirds of our land is under grass. But there is grass and grass. There are probably as many different varieties of grass as there are Members of this House; some are good and some are less good. This is a highly technical question, but I only want to refer to two technical developments which I believe are revolutionising the situation. I listened with great interest to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), that technical developments in aeronautics have in the last year or two revolutionised that subject, and I think the same is true in agriculture. I would particularly refer to the experiments which are now being carried out at Aberystwyth by Professor Stapledon. If that agricultural land which is at present under grass is kept in such a condition that it can be turned to other uses when the need arises, this country could produce very much more than half our foodstuffs—perhaps at a cost which is not economic in peace-time but which will be not only economic but absolutely essential, if we have to face the difficulties of another war.

9.42 p.m.

Captain MACNAMARA: I consider that it is always well, in circumstances like the present, to have one's object clearly defined in one's mind. I consider that our object in this case should be to be sufficiently strong and efficient to shoulder our responsibilities without hesitation and without putting an unnecessary burden upon the taxpayer. There are certain factors affecting the attainment of this object, and those factors seem to resolve themselves into a tug-of-war between the Services, within the Services, between various Departments, between the central Government and the London County Council and various Socialist county councils all over the country. Within the Services there is the mechanisation which sometimes means a drifting apart of officers and men on the march and so on; and there is the question of foreign policy, which is not always in keeping with what the defence forces of the country can back up. Factories are growing up around London and other cities, which are vulnerable to air attack. And so at last the Government have appointed a Minister to deal with all these subjects. We welcome his appointment, but we want to know how far his services extend. We know that they extend to the co-ordination of the three Services, and we think they will also extend to the co-ordination of civil arrangements where they affect the aerial defence of the country. Do they extend to the internal arrangements in the Services—to the Army in India, for example; and do they extend to the question of the co-operation of the Dominons, the Colonies and foreign countries, and to foreign policy?
I suggest that the first duty the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence should tackle is political co-ordination within the House of Commons. There are certain matters on which there is agreement between the Labour and Liberal Oppositions and Members on this side of the House, and in my opinion it would be a good thing if we tried to raise the matter of defence, and, generally speaking, the armed forces of this country, out of the sphere of party politics, and if we tried to agree on certain points which affect the efficiency of the defences of the country. Then it will be necessary to tackle the various industries. I do not know how difficult

The MINISTER is finding it, but I fancy he is having a certain amount of difficulty with the other Ministries of the Government, and I hope that lie will be able to get the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Education, the Mines Department, the Board of Trade and so on to co-operate in regard to the defence of this country, in the same way as do the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry.
One matter that I want to mention is the question of the Civil Departments and air attack. At present it is very hard for any district in this country to know who is responsible for its defence against air attack. Aeroplanes in the air are administered and controlled tactically by the Air Ministry: the guns which are supposed to shoot at the enemy's aeroplanes are administered by the War Office but controlled tactically by the Air Ministry; the Civil Department controls the police force, which is administered by the Home Office; the hospitals are administered by the Ministry of Health, and so on. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should not hesitate to put one officer in charge of each district who will have actual command of all the different forces in time of war, and that such officers should be trained to take command in time of peace. I do not know whether there are any underground hangars in this country, but I think the time has come when there should be.
With regard to the Navy, I wish we could have a final settlement of this controversy of the battleship against the bomb. The naval tradition of this country is one in which the small ships have always come to the fore. When our Navy has had small ships with power to manoeuvre, they have generally been more successful in battle than when our ships have been lumbering. heavy, and so expensive that those is command are apt to hesitate to risk them in action. I was going also to mention the question of the fishing fleet, but that was done by the Leader of the Liberal party, so I will not cover that ground again. I suggest that the time has come to look into the system of command in the Navy and to arrange for junior officers actually to command and lead sections and divisions of men in the Navy, in the same way as they do in the Army. We should not then have any more troubles such as we had at Invergordon and elsewhere.
We have heard of the possibility of the aerial invasion of this country. I do not think that we are likely to have one in force in the near future, but we are very likely to have in the next war small parties of the enemy being landed from the air by parachute, with machine guns and small armoured fighting vehicles and these could play havoc wherever they landed for about three or four days. They could disorganise all our lines of communication within the country. I suggest that to meet that danger the Minister should ask the War Office to start, in each town in this country, motorised companies, with people bringing their own cars. These motor squadrons, which will be trained to be ready, like fire brigades, to go and pounce on any outbreak wherever it might occur.
There are various matters to do with the Territorial Army which I should like to mention. For one thing, I consider that the Territorial Army is absolutely inadequate in size at the moment. Its establishment is only 170,000, and yet it is only 120,000 strong, whereas it should be 500,000 strong. The people of this country should realise that they have a duty to do and should perform it. The Territorial Army should be a centre of all the athletic movements in this country, with a complete Press behind it. Instead of the Press, as at present, bothering about football news, cinema stars, and all that nonsense, it should be interested in what is happening in the various units of the Territorial Army, and the whole attitude of the country to the Territorials should change. We should look upon the Territorials as a national Army, in the same way as other countries look upon their armed forces and youth movements. The recruiting problem in the Army is appalling, and I do not think you will ever get a satisfactory regular Army until you tackle the Cardwell system and reorganise it. There must be a short-service Army at home which will attract many recruits, and a long-service Army which will provide a real career for those who want to stay in it as a life-work. The regular Army must be modernised so that the modern man will find in it modern discipline and a modern outlook.
With regard to the Air Force, I consider it absolutely absurd that when a foreign aeroplane flies over London with a view to bombing it, that aeroplane will be tackled by the Air Ministry in the air,

by the War Office on the ground, while the Home Office, through the police, etc., will be responsible for the protection against its bombs. You cannot expect any efficiency with that sort of amazing democratic compromise, and I suggest that the air defences of this country should be handed over whole-heartedly to the Air Ministry. The anti-aircraft defenders of London are supposed to be 10,000 strong; they are only 5,000 strong now. If you handed them all over to the Air Force and gave them the blue uniform, they would like it, and men would join up in large numbers, and you would get a full establishment at once, besides having co-ordinated training.
I hope also the Minister will coordinate his defence policy with the foreign policy of this country. One has to consider the whole matter rather in the light of a limited liability company, with debenture, preference and ordinary shares. A great deal of hard thinking will have to be done. What will be our debentures. When our debentures are threatened, in other words, when this country is threatened, the whole country must be prepared to resist with force. Legislation must be prepared now. The whole country must be conscripted at once; and I think all parties in this House will agree to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] I am certain that if an invasion were threatened, the Opposition would be just as ready to join in the defence of the country as would Members on this side, and it is only fair that we should get together, not as parties, but as a nation in self-defence, and speak to the nation with a united voice now, not when it is too late.

Mr. A. EDWARDS: Do you mean to conscript wealth as well?

Captain MACNAMARA: Yes, I do not think it is at all fair to send off a young soldier or a working man to the firing line unless wealth also is controlled for the defence of the country. If our preference shares are attacked, by which I mean those shares of the company which are very valuable to it, but perhaps not so vital to its structure as the debentures, then our regular forces must be prepared to meet the emergency. What are debentures and what are the various grades of preference share should be thought out now, and we should be ready with our fighting forces and our


plans to meet any circumstance that arises. As to our ordinary shares, I consider these to be such matters as hostilities in Eastern Europe or South America. We should regret the disturbing effect that these would exert on our company, but we should not interfere in any way which would risk our preference or debenture holding.
Charity begins at home, and before we talk about what we are going to do abroad or make any bombastic statements on foreign policy, we must tackle the actual character of the youth of this country. This is a matter which has to be mentioned at some time, so I may as well mention it now. There is too much of the escalator movement among the youth of the country to-day, too much of being taken up to the top on a moving stairway and not even walking up. We have to get our people voluntarily into the same sort of thinking as other patriotic nations have their youth thinking. The Nazi movement in Germany, it should be remembered, was voluntary at first, and in this country too it would not do any harm for the youth of the country to have more of the patriotism that one sees abroad. It is time that they realised that they owe a service to the State, instead of their only idea being what they can get out of the Government. The sooner we tell our people, frankly, that a spirit of service and duty is noble and to be desired instead of pandering to them in trying to get votes, the better.
Finally, I think the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence will have to bear in kind certain principles, using the initial letters of his title as a reminder. M—maintenance of objective and not turning off on side lines which are not objectives. F—framework in peace, which can be expanded in war. C—co-operation with the Dominions and the Colonies and the rest of the Empire. 0—opportunity for promotion and the recognition of merit, wherever it is, without fear or favour. D—discarding, dismembering, dissolving all obsolete arms and weapons and services, remembering that tradition is served best by efficiency.

9.56 p.m.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member except to say that the desire to get things out of the Government is

not confined to any particular class in this country. Anyone who has been in this House during the last few Parliaments will have discovered that. There has been satisfaction expressed on all sides to-day that the co-ordination of Defence has been chosen for to-day's discussion. There is no doubt, as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) pointed out, that the co-ordination of Defence is a demand which has been urged upon the Government for a very long time, and there was very general satisfaction throughout all quarters of the House when the Government decided eventually to appoint a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. It must, however, be pointed out that a great deal of misgiving was evident in all parts of the House when the White Paper was issued, because while the Government were deciding to appoint a Minister for Coordination, the programmes of the Forces that he was to co-ordinate had already been settled. The Navy had decided what their policy was to be, the Air Force had already started on their expansion policy and some of us had hoped to-clay that the right hon. Gentleman would have told us what he was going to do to co-ordinate the defences of the country and not to allow the three Services to go on as in the past, each one putting forward its own demands.
Let me give an illustration of what I mean in regard to the Navy. During the discussion on the Supplementary Estimates last week there was a good deal of confusion in the House with regard to the terms of reference of the committee appointed to sit on the question of whether or not battleships were vulnerable from the air. Certain hon. and right hon. Members were of the opinion that if such a committee decided that battleships were vulnerable from the air, that would mean that we should not proceed with the building of battleships. The right hon. Member for Epping was certainly of that opinion, but the Noble Lord who speaks for the Admiralty in this House went on to say that whatever the committee decided, the Admiralty's proposals would stand all the same. That statement is taken from the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, later in the Debate, said that the laying down of these two battleships was a matter of very great urgency


and that two or three months was a vital time in their construction.
May I suggest that there are matters of even greater urgency so far as the Navy is concerned than the laying down of new battleships? Reference has been made by various speakers not merely to the defence of the country but to the provision of food and raw materials for our population of 45,000,000, which have to be transported over thousands of miles of ocean, our dependence upon which, I regret to say, is no less than it was in the days before the War. Therefore, it seems to me that a matter of greater urgency than the laying down of two battleships is the development of our cruisers and our smaller craft, because it is on our cruisers and our smaller craft that, in the long run, we have to depend for the safe convoying of food supplies and raw materials over thousands of miles from every part of the world. While there may be disputes as to the vulnerability of battleships, no one will suggest that it is the Battle Fleet that will make it possible to protect those trade routes. If that were so, we should need not one Singapore but half a dozen.
The really serious matter in regard to the Navy to-day, as pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), is the great shrinkage in our cruiser and destroyer strength since the days before the War. Anyone who knows the history of the War knows that although we had then nearly double what we have to-day, the one arm that we were short of during the War was that of cruisers and light craft. With a smaller number available to-day and with the same dependence on overseas supplies, this is the matter for urgency and not the building of battleships in regard to which nobody knows whether they will be blown up by bombs.
No reference was made by the right hon. Gentleman to the question of the supply of food. I remember the Prime Minister, in the Debate on the Address, saying, with regard to many establishments which are at present situated in certain parts of the country, that the Government were going to consider the removal of them to areas less liable to disturbance in case of trouble than the places where some of them are situated to-day. What are the Government doing about that? If a. European war occurred, we

have in the most vulnerable part of the country most important naval bases, most important munition factories and other industrial works, and we have not only the greatest port in the world but the greatest food stores in this country to be found in and around London. The most vulnerable part of Britain is where most of these centres are to be found to-day. Do the Government consider it wise to have all these things in the most vulnerable part of the country?
Take the Port of London. The trade of the Port of London is growing year by year. Do the Government think that the Port of London could be used in a European war? Whatever the effect of an attack from the air may be on battleships, there can be no doubt that the effect of attack from the air on merchant ships is a much more dangerous factor than it was before. Do the Government think that the hours of darkness—it is obviously impossible for a merchant convoy to come through the narrow seas of the English Channel in hours of daylight, with the existence of modern hostile aircraft—would be sufficient for the convoy to come from our west coast and reach the Port of London? Therefore, I would ask whether the Government have considered the possibility of London not being the biggest port but a port hardly used at all in a European war. It is a possibility that ought to be considered.
With regard to food storage, we have in London an enormous store of food. I believe it has the biggest storage for meat that is to be found. That is very serious. The House must remember the serious explosion in the East End during the War. Near the scene of the explosion was an enormous storehouse with, I think, something like a six weeks' supply of flour inside it, and it was touch-and-go whether as a result of that explosion the whole of that stock would be destroyed. It seems to me a matter that wants very careful consideration whether facilities are available in ports much further removed from the source of danger than London. I know it is said that aircraft travel so fast that they are practically over the scene of operations before the defence are aware that they have started. That is true of areas such as the South-East of England but it is not true of areas further away to the West and North-West because,


whatever the increase in efficiency of aeroplanes may be, there is this to be said, that the further they have to travel over hostile territory the less is their efficiency, because they have to travel a long distance, and have to travel a long distance back, and there is ample time to give warning to the people in charge of the defence of ports on other parts of our coast. I hope the Government will give very serious consideration to that.
With regard to home-grown food supplies, not only is it a vital thing to our own population to get more people on to the soil but it is vital to the very welfare of the country itself. I regretted very much when the Chancellor the other night, in reply to a question with regard to that point, said that since the National Government came in the supply of homegrown foodstuff's had gone up by 14 per cent. Does he think that a very substantial contribution to the feeding of the country in time of emergency? A great deal more could be done, riot only for the benefit of those who work on the soil but for providing our people with food.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping devoted nearly the whole of his speech to the question of the deficiency of stores—a very vital matter. I want to point out that there may be a deficiency of stores, but there is also a deficiency of men. We have embarked on a scheme of great expansion. It does not matter, as far as I can see, whether you have the finest tanks in the world, the most efficient aeroplanes, the finest artillery, the best projectiles and the best means of producing them, if you have not the men to man them. The trouble at the moment is that we cannot maintain our existing forces without talking about the increase that is contemplated by the Government under these proposals. How do they propose to overcome that very serious difficulty? If they do not overcome it, the whole of this expenditure is waste.
May I give the figures of the Army and the Territorial Force? The establishment of the Army is considerably below what it was before the War. Then it was about 250,000. It was only very little short of the establishment at the beginning of the War. To-day it is only 208,000, and we are actually below that figure in strength at present. A much more serious

thing in my judgment is the condition of the Territorial Force. It is to-day below establishment—I think something like 44,000 or 45,000 men. The pre-war establishment of the Territorials was 300,000. To-day it is 175,000. I regard the Territorials as being vital to the defence of the country. They were the reserve of the regular Army in 1914. They had just enough training—far more than Regular officers gave them credit for—to enable them, after a very short period of intensive training, to become really efficient soldiers, with the result that in 1914 there were 23 battalions of Territorials in France, six Yeomanry regiments in other parts of the East, a division went to Egypt and three divisions went to India. By February, 1915, there were 48 battalions of Territorials in France. Not a single unit of the new Army arrived in France before September. It is a very difficult thing to contemplate what the position of our Regular Army would have been had it not been for the supplies that they got from this very efficient Territorial Force.
The shortage of men is not confined to the Army and the Territorial Force. We had a Debate the other day on the Mercantile Marine, and I pointed out that one of the things that I regarded as rather serious was that in many cases the small ports round our coasts which used to supply boys for sailing ships no longer had any ships at all. The right hon. Gentleman agreed but did not suggest any remedy. I understand from the Debate that there is an actual shortage of sailors to-day. Despite the fact that you have a large percentage of unemployed I am told that there is actually a shortage of the skilled men who are necessary in the Mercantile Marine. That is even more serious than the Army position, because the last War showed that we were absolutely dependent on the Mercantile Marine as far as the Navy was concerned. It is difficult to realise what the position would have been without the fishermen and the men of the Mercantile Marine.
How can this shortage of men be remedied? How do the Government propose to raise this figure of recruits for the Army? In Germany Hitler had no difficulty, because he just conscripted them. I think he probably had to conscript them. But there is no Government in this country that dare suggest con-


scription unless we were actually at war. In pre-War times it was not quite so difficult to keep the supply of men for the Army going. Whether we like it or not, economic necessity had a great deal to do with recruiting. That is not so today. However inadequate we may think unemployment benefit is, it is at any rate an improvement on what it was before the War. Therefore, the economic necessity is not there. But there is another factor that you have to remember, that you have a very large number of people who went through the War, and it is no good disguising from yourself that that is in itself a deterrent.
It has always been said that armaments depend upon policy. I think that is doubly true to-day. The Government in the White Paper tell us that their defence policy is in line with their foreign policy. I hope it is going to be better than that. But they recognise that armaments must depend upon policy and, unless it is a policy which will induce young men to come forward and face the inconvenience and ultimate risk which enlistment entails, we shall not get the men. What is the policy of the Government according to the White Paper? It is the promotion of collective security. They all talk about collective security, but when it comes to what may well be the logical conclusion of collective security, they are not prepared to fight for it. It is true that, though joint sanctions, if not wholly effective are half ineffective, further sanctions might lead to the use of force. Therefore the appeal to youth, as we heard at the last Election, to support a Government which were going in for increased armaments for the purpose of fulfilling their obligations under the collective system, is not an appeal, in view of their record, which is going to go down with youth.
The interesting thing is that in one case the Government are quite prepared to fight. They are, apparently, not prepared to fight for the Covenant, but with regard to Germany they are quite prepared, and, in fact, have agreed to make the preparations, if necessary, to take military action. Therefore, it cannot be an objection to using force. I would say to the Government—it may not be popular with those benches, and I am saying this after having made very extensive inquiries—that the youth of this

country do not want another quarrel with Germany. It. is not that they are pro-German. Rather is it felt that the French statesmanship is not quite what it should have been in its interpretation of French obligations under the Covenant. If the Government want men for the forces, they must have a policy that will make this generation be prepared to face the same sacrifices as the other generation did. But let them make it clear, not by speeches on platforms in support of the League of Nations, but by their action, that they really do believe in collective security. If they make that position perfectly clear, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that not only will he have no difficulty in getting men for the service of this country, but he will achieve an even better thing—he will give to the people of this country real peace and security.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. A. EDWARDS: Probably I should not have intervened in this Debate but for a very important point raised by an hon. Member opposite and a comment by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I asked a question of the hon. Member whether, in suggesting conscription, it included the conscription of wealth, and I was very pleased indeed to have the admission that he so included it. The first reference to conscription brought very enthusiastic applause from the Noble Lord but the reference to conscription of wealth did not.

Earl WINTERTON: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his courteous reference to me. I entirely agree both with him and the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. I believe, first, that conscription can only be imposed in time of war, and, secondly, that it should be applied to every one irrespective of class, and should include wealth.

Mr. EDWARDS: I am very glad to have that assurance because it is time that the admission was made in this House that, in the event of war, if conscription is talked about, there should be conscription of wealth. If that had been said some years ago perhaps there would riot be the talk about war that we hear to-day. It raises the whole question as to who pays for these wars and the


preparations for war. I do not think that an hon. Member on that side of the House dare rise and say that, as a result of these preparations, there are going to be sacrifices by those represented on that side of the House. We had the admission yesterday that the sacrifice to be made by the workpeople was a reduced standard of living. It was said by two speakers that there would inevitably be a reduced standard of living. That means that the workers are to pay the price of these preparations, and the workpeople are entitled to have a very large say in the policy.
I admit freely that the class represented by hon. Members opposite gave their sons in the last War as freely as any other section of the community, but they only loaned their money. That raises the important question as to how the £8,000,000,000 debt at the end of the War, ten times what it was at the beginning of the War, was made. A considerable amount of it represents profits out of the War. That cannot be denied. Whenever the wages of workmen are mentioned in official statistics you will see two columns, one the real wages and another the money wages, but you never see such a comparison when it is a question of interest, and if you take the real interest on the War Debt you will find that it will reveal the fact that the interest is still over 7 per cent., which comes largely out of the working people. We have cancelled debts of foreign countries, which again have to be met by increased taxation. Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the difference in the cost of living that had taken place during the lifetime of the National Government, but he did not tell us the difference between direct and indirect taxation in 1931 as compared with 1936. These figures would reveal the fact that the burden is being shifted gradually but surely on to the shoulders of the working people.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, I think, is trying to deliver a speech which he was not fortunate enough to deliver yesterday.

Mr. EDWARDS: Your suspicion, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, is well founded. I will try to deal with one other phase of this subject. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) emphasised the

vital point of the question of supplies, and I am rather surprised that he did not deal with the question of oil. It is obvious that all the money which is going to be spent on armaments will be wasted unless we have a. supply of oil. The Government admitted yesterday that it is possible to produce our oil supplies from coal, and the cost would not be excessive compared with the programme we are discussing. If the right hon. Member for Epping had inquired into the stocks of iron ore in this country, another vital raw material, he would have got a great shock. We are dependent almost entirely on supplies from abroad. We are challenged frequently by hon. Members opposite as to whether we are prepared to face up to this increased programme which it is said is necessary under the collective system. I think it is rather an absurd argument to say that because we have a collective system cur individual responsibilities are increased. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence translated that argument into another sphere and invited men to join in a limited liability company on the understanding that each individual would have to subscribe more to the company than he would if running the business alone, we should think he was a lunatic or a criminal. The whole purpose of collective security is to reduce our individual responsibility.
I would like now to say a word or two about profits. Hon. Members on this side of the House are not satisfied that everything has been done to ensure that there will not be any profiteering. Since the Prime Minister made the announcement that there was to be an expansion of our Air Force, patriotic people have subscribed their money very willingly for the manufacture of more aeroplanes, but out of £7,000,000 subscribed we are told that only £600,000 found its way into the production of aeroplanes. That is a very good start at profiteering. If those figures are incorrect, I would like to have them corrected. I would like to recall one instance which will perhaps emphasise what I a m saying. During the War one of the biggest industrialists in this country offered to do his share for nothing, but he has since said that he was compelled to do it on a business basis and made £2,000,000 profit. He was compelled to make that profit


although he was willing to give his services for nothing. I would ask the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is not going to insist that there should be some safeguard. We would like to know just what that safeguard is to be in order that our suspicions may be removed, for there are suspicions on this side of the House. Therefore, let us have some assurance that there is not to be profiteering.
I have mentioned two cases, and the companies concerned have already shown a very large appreciation of capital which nobody doubts will be turned into profit. Above all, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that the cost of these preparations is to be placed on the shoulders which can bear it, and not transferred every time to the workers as it has been during the four years of the National Government. During that time indirect taxation has consistently increased, and all the time the cost of these things falls on the workers. In conclusion, let me say that I was glad to have the admission from the benches opposite that in the event of war in this country capital is to be conscripted in the same way that men are to be conscripted.

10.27 p.m.

Sir T. INSKIP: I have listened wtih attention to the speech of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards), but he asked me to undertake a somewhat difficult task. He said truly that there are suspicions on, the benches opposite and he asked me to remove them. My experience of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that there is nothing that will remove the suspicions which they entertain, and I venture to think that very many of them regard the suspicions which they entertain as their chief stock-in-trade both in this House and at the street corner. I think the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough, despite the check which you, Sir, put upon his imagination, was directing his shots at the target of capitalism rather than at the target which I represent on this occasion.
The Debate which has taken place has been fruitful in suggestions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said truly that I must expect criticism, and indeed I had already anticipated that in the observations I

made earlier in the afternoon. In the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Captain Macnamara) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), there was a number of fruitful suggestions, for which I should like to thank the hon. and gallant Members. I am bound to say that I thought the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford more excellent for the reason that some of the, ideas he put forward had already passed through my own mind and therefore I naturally approved of them.
As regards the main questions which have been addressed to the Government, I think I can deal with them in the time that remains to me. I seem to have used a phrase which has caused a little misunderstanding, in my description of my relations with the Chiefs of Staff Committee. The right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) both referred to the phrase which I used that I was "in touch with" the Chiefs of Staff. If they understood that to mean that I had only a nodding acquaintance with the Chiefs of Staff they wholly misunderstood my meaning. I have asked the Chiefs of Staff to give me their appreciation of particular positions. I have had the happiness and the honour of presiding at their deliberations on several occasions, and when I said I had kept in touch with them, without attempting to enumerate all the occasions on which I had met them, I can certainly say that I meant to indicate that I had tried to fulfil, as I think I have fulfilled, what was held out in the White Paper as one of my chief duties as far as the Chiefs of Staffs are concerned.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping mentioned a number of matters which he invited me to consider. He asked me to take into consideration the use of an expeditionary force, the Mediterranean position, the power of Russia and the possibility of the invasion of this country by aeroplane. I am bound to say it had not occurred to me to discuss with the Chiefs of Staff the last possibility. There has been a film, which, I believe, displayed something of that sort, and as my right hon. Friend attaches importance to it, I will


take the opportunity of consulting the advisers of the Services. As to the other three matters which he mentioned, they are only three of a number of similar points which I have already considered. My right hon. Friend was kind enough to say that he would not expect me to tell the Committee this afternoon the results of our deliberations. I can assure him that two, if not three of the matters which he mentioned have already been the subject of most careful consideration and I have had the great advantage of a report upon the questions which my right hon. Friend raised.
The right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite invited me to perform an impossible task, or at any rate a task which I would not attempt and which I believe it would be improper for me to attempt. He asked me to tell the Committee the truth about Germany, about Europe, about the Far East, about the Near East. What does the right hon. Gentleman expect? Does he really expect me to imagine conflict in all these different parts of the world, and to tell the Committee of the dispositions which the Government, with the advice of their technical advisers, would make in the hypothetical events which he asked me to imagine? He suggested that I should imitate two very great men, the late Lord Haldane and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, and tell the House in the same pictorial and direct way of the uses which we propose to make of His Majesty's Forces.
There is one great difference between those days and the present. In the days when my right hon. Friend was at the Admiralty and the late Lord Haldane was at the War Office, the potential enemy, broadly, was Germany. We were on friendly terms with Japan; it was possible to measure our strength by a well-known standard in comparison with Germany; and, undoubtedly, when this House considered questions of military or naval strategy, it was impossible to avoid discussing them in terms of the major conflict which must have seemed to most people the only possible conflict that could take place. Consider the position to-day. Am I to be asked to walk round the map of the world and consider all the probable conflicts that might take

place? The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) invited me to engage in a discussion of what he called pooled security. Supposing that had been done. Would not Italy have been included in a pooled security in which she would be under an obligation to make a considerable contribution on the same side as ourselves What would be the worth of a calculation in a pooled security of that sort, in view of the events that have happened to-day in which Italy is not a contributor to security but has been held to be an aggressor?

Mr. MANDER: Is not the position that if three years ago we had had a real system of pooled security, including Italy, the present trouble with Ethiopia would never have occurred?

Sir T. INSKIP: That is one of the most remarkable non sequiturs I have heard, and I will nut trouble further about it. If those critics who ask us to tell the Committee what we are going to do with His Majesty's Forces for which we are asking reinforcements will only be good enough to turn to the White Paper, they will find in paragraph 22 and the following paragraphs categorical statements of the duty of the Navy; they will find in paragraph 30 a statement that the Army has three main functions to perform, which are set out; in paragraph 33 they will find that the duty of the Territorial Army is stated to be to provide the first line in anti-aircraft and coast defence at home; and they will find that paragraph 36 describes the prime function of the Royal Air Force as being to provide an effective deterrent to any attack upon the vital interests of this country, whether situated at home or overseas. The Committee may say that one or two of these paragraphs are necessarily general in terms. Of course they are, for the very reason I have tried to mention, that the circumstances in which we may be involved and the situation in which the conflict may take place prevents anybody from being categorical or stereotyped in his description of the use to which the Navy, Army, or Air Force shall be put.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite described in somewhat contemptuous terms my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War providing an all-weather Army which was to be no particular use,


anyway. It is perfectly true that it is an all-weather Army. We cannot keep four armies, one for Europe, one for Egypt, one for India, and one for China or Japan. It has got to be an all-weather Army, and if hon. Members opposite want us to keep a larger and a swollen Army, perhaps we shall be able then to provide an Army that can serve in the different places in which, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman contemplates conflicts. The right hon. Gentleman made some criticisms of the experts. He said that he did not trust experts. He does not trust the Minister, and therefore they are all out of step except the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. ATTLEE: I said they were out of step with each other.

Sir T. INSKIP: Part of the reason for my appointment is to help them keep in step. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) said the Leader of the Opposition had put the case for the Opposition very well. I only wish that I really knew what the case for the Opposition is. I listened carefully to the speeches that were made, and I should think that hon. Members opposite would be unable to put into a sentence the kernel or the gist of their case otherwise than in this way, that what the Government has done is wrong. That seems to me to be their case; but if we are to understand the Leader of the Opposition as conceding that this country needs to reinforce its defences, and that the Opposition will co-operate with the Government in making those reinforcements as effective as possible, I will put up with all the criticisms they direct to me personally if I have that promise of co-operation with us.
Let me deal with the important suggestion which my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping made as to a Ministry of Supply. My right hon. Friend has almost unrivalled experience of administration, his knowledge is very real and great, and I am most interested in his proposal and can promise him, in all sincerity, that it shall receive the most careful consideration of which I am capable. But let me remind him of what I am sure he will remember, that this whole question of a Ministry of Supply was exhaustively examined in 1920, and after a prolonged inquiry the decision was taken to do away with the

Ministry of Munitions and to allow the work of supply to revert to the Service Departments. The right hon. Gentleman will remember it better because he was at the time Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air, and therefore assented to the destruction of the Ministry. [An HON. MEMBER: "He forgot."] No, I do not think he forgot. To be quite frank I think my right hon. Friend's answer would be, and it is one that he rather anticipated himself, that we might perhaps jog along in peace time with Service Departments being their own supply services, but not in war time or when war time is near.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Or when a great expansion has to be made.

Sir T. INSKIP: The whole question is whether the circumstances have so changed since 1920, or whether the emergency which he contemplates, when a great expansion has to be made in a very brief space of time, has arrived. [Interruption.] I think I have stated the position perfectly fairly. The Government have rightly or wrongly, as I think rightly, come to the conclusion that—though the Government may be running risks in taking responsibility for such a decision—the time has not come to revive a Ministry of Supply of munitions with such powers as my right hon. Friend contemplates for it. As I said in my opening remarks, we must keep this question under continual observation. I hope and believe that it may be possible for us to complete our programme, if it has to be completed, without such a disturbance, because I should like the Committee to contemplate the consequences of a dislocation of our export trade, to visualise the consequences of stopping home production for peace services.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out either last night or on another occasion that a great part of the cost of what we are doing for the Services is being provided out of expanding revenue at the cost of the taxpayer. I should like to know where the taxpayers are to make the incomes, especially if the profit, to use my right hon. Friend's expression, is to be taken out of war, which I understand to mean profit out of making munitions. That is the issue which is involved, but, as I have told my right hon. Friend, he can


be assured that his proposal, even if it had come from a less experienced Member of this House, would have received anxious and sincere consideration, but that coming from him we regard it as coming reinforced with his great experience.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, while thanking him for the courteous manner in which he has treated me, whether he will give the Committee his assurance that, as far as he is concerned, the programme upon which the Government have decided, shall be carried out punctually at the dates required for national safety, and that he will not hesitate to plunge the country into inconvenience rather than let that programme fail?

Sir T. INSKIP: I must not be asked to give an undertaking of a sort which might recoil upon me if it were not fulfilled in the letter, but I certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Government consider this a question, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, on which we should not hesitate to tell the country the truth. If the country is to be involved in what I cannot help regarding as a great disaster, I am sure the country will be strong enough and brave enough to bear it. What I am not prepared to do is to advise this House and the country to undertake a policy which would be a disaster unless I am convinced that that course is absolutely required.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite complained against the Prime Minister in consequence of Sir Maurice Hankey having been called upon to give evidence before the Royal Commission on armaments. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly plain that he made no criticism or attack upon a. great public servant, hut he placed the responsibility upon the Prime Minister. Perhaps it does not matter whether the permission to Sir Maurice Hankey to appear before the commission was given by the Prime Minister or the Lord President of the Council who was then Prime Minister, but the fact is that the possibility of Sir Maurice Hankey giving evidence was considered after he returned from Australia a long time ago, and even before the Members of the commission were actually appointed. May I suggest that there is no impropriety at all. It is a novel

doctrine, surely, that when a Royal Commission is appointed to get to the truth of some question the man who knows most about it is to be prevented— [Interruption.]

Mr. ATTLEE: That is a misrepresentation of the intention of what happened. I said that it was perfectly right for an expert to give evidence, but I complained of a civil servant being put in a position to pass opinions upon matters of political controversy.

Sir T. INSKIP: The right hon. Gentleman has hardly done himself justice. I have had some experience, and there is no distinction such as he tried to make. It would have been quite impossible for Sir Maurice Hankey to go there and give the Royal Commission the benefit of his experience on the Committee of Imperial Defence and of the manufacture of armaments, extending over 35 years, and such as nobody else has had, without from time to time giving an answer declaring perhaps more an expression of opinion than a statement of fact. Let me give an illustration. The right hon. Gentleman especially referred to the fact that Sir Maurice Hankey did not regard the opinions of the peace ballot upon a particular question [An HON. MEMBER: "There were 11,000,000 people."] There may have been 11,000,000, but that is not the point. The point I am putting is that Sir Maurice Hankey had given evidence when one of the members of the commission put to him, out of the blue, some question as to whether he did not attach importance to the answer of 11,000,000 people on the question of the manufacture of armaments. Was Sir Maurice Hankey to say, "Sir, I have come here to give evidence on statements of fact rather than express opinions"? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I should have thought that that was for the member of the commission who asked the question.
Let me carry this a little further. It was suggested that you ought to have had Sir Maurice Hankey to give answers on statements of fact and a Cabinet Minister to express opinions. Did anybody ever hear of such an idea; except when a Cabinet Minister's responsibility for conduct has been held in question as in the Dardanelles aid Mediterranean Royal Commission. I doubt whether there has ever been a case of a Cabinet Minister being called before a Royal


Commission merely to air his political opinions. The fact is that Sir Maurice Hankey gave evidence before both these Commissions—it sounds a long time ago, but his experience is so long—and I have never heard that anybody in this House quarrelled with the answers he gave because he gave his evidence then as now in the form of an expression of opinion. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman opposite felt that the paucity of his argument required that there should be an attack on the Prime Minister in a matter in which the Prime Minister is absolutely blameless.

Mr. ATTLEE: Sir Maurice Hankey said that he appeared as advocate for a particular side. That is unusual.

Sir T. INSKIP: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the evidence he will find that the chairman of the Commission said to Sir Maurice Hankey in effect that he was putting the case for defence and Sir Maurice Hankey assented to it. If he will look at the evidence to-day he will see that when the chairman of the Commission put the question in a more pointed way, Sir Maurice Hankey said that he did not accept that position, and accepted the statement that was made. If the right hon. Gentleman's attack on the Prime Minister really depended on a chance phrase of that sort put to Sir Maurice Hankey by the chairman of the Commission, it shows how extremely thin his case was.
I am sorry to say that I have a slight quarrel with the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). He told the Committee that I had not drawn up terms for the battleship inquiry in the same wide terms as my Noble Friend promised. His suggestion was that the Noble Lord had promised an inquiry into the whole question of the usefulness of the battleship. It is a little remarkable; I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not deliberately intend it, but was so set on the chase that he did it; he omitted a sentence which really makes all the difference to the whole passage. He omitted this sentence in column 117, between the two passages which he read:
But they must not make airy speeches about what aircraft can or cannot do. Their views must be based on definite experience, and I hope that they will be open to cross-questioning by the naval authorities.

It is as plain as anything that he was dealing with the position of the battleship in relation, to air attack.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Certainly I left that out. I never thought that anybody would suppose that I was ignorant of the fact that air attack was one of the questions that was going to be inquired into. But the right hon. Gentleman did not remind the Committee of this sentence:
I can assure him every step will be taken to ensure that all these points can he thrashed out as to the merit or otherwise of our battleship replacement programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1936; col. 118, Vol. 310.]

Sir T. INSKIP: The whole passage dealt with air attack.

Sir T. SINSKIP: No.

Sir T. INSKIP: There is one other matter. I think it was raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as well as by the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. It was said that the Prime Minister, in a speech at the Guildhall, gave an assurance that there would be no great armaments—
I give you my word that there will be no great armaments.
There again the right hon. Gentleman did not do justice to the Prime Minister, who two sentences before had said:
Doubts of our own safety give no assurance of peace.
It is to be observed that that speech to the Peace Society at the Guildhall was not a political speech. If the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to know what the Prime Minister really said to the country in his election manifesto, he will find that my right hon. Friend said:
We have made it clear that we must, in the course of the next few years, do what is necessary to repair the gaps in our defences which have accumulated over the past decade.…The defence programme will be strictly confined to what is required to make the country and the Empire safe.
I do not think that anyone can doubt for a moment that the whole country thoroughly well understood the Prime Minister when he was asking the electors to return him to power, and said:
We must do what is necessary to repair the gaps in our defence.
Whether or not the armaments we are now asking the House to give us are great armaments may be a matter of opinion, but there is no doubt that there


is no ground for any attack upon the Prime Minister's good faith in this matter. I feel that I am indebted to the whole Committee for the consideration they have given me, and I should like also to tender my thanks to my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] Yes; even hon. Members opposite will not prevent me from engaging in one of the common courtesies of debate, and perhaps when they attend this House a little more they will soon acquire the same habit. I would conclude on this note, that, whatever criticisms have been

addressed to the Government from all quarters of the Committee, they have at any rate purported to be criticisms based on a sincere desire to see this country made safe and strong enough to carry out its obligations. I take those professions at their face value, and ask hon. Members in all parts of the Committee to continue their co-operation with us.

Question put, "That Sub-head BB (Salary of Minister for Co-ordination of Defence) be reduced by £100."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 270.

Division No. 194.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, W. M.
Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro W.)
Owen, Major G.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, H. J. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pritt, D. N.


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Buchanan, G.
Holland, A.
Ritson, J.


Burke, W. A.
Hollins, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
Hopkin, D.
Rothschild. J. A. de


Chater, D.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins. A. (Pontypool)
Silkin, L.


Cocks, F. S.
John, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Compton, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacLaren, A.
Waikden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Walker, J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mander, G. le M.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Marklew, E.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Marshall. F.
Whiteley, W.


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major J.



George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibbins, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Sir Percy Harris and Mr. Dingle


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Foot.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A
Naylor, T. E.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Bull, B. B.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Burghley, Lord


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bernays, R. H.
Butler, R. A.


Albery, I. J.
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandernan (B'kn'hd)
Blair, Sir R.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Blindell, Sir J.
Cary, R. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bossom, A. C.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Apsley, Lord
Boulton, W. W.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cazaiet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Assheton, R.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Atholl, Duchess of
Brass, Sir W.
Channon,


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Clarke, F. E.


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Baxter, A. Beverley
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Cobb, Sir C. S.




Colman, N. C. D.
Jackson, Sir H.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jarvis, Sir I. J.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Joel, D. J. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


Cranborne, Viscount
Keeling, E. H.
Remer, J. R.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crooke, J. S.
Kimball, L.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Rowlands, G.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lamb. Sir J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Latham, Sir P.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Leckie, J. A.
Salmon, Sir I.


De Chair, S. S.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


De la Bère, R.
Lees-Jones, J.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Denville, Alfred
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Sandys, E. D.


Dodd. J S.
Levy, T.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Lewis, O.
Savery, Servington


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Liddall, W. S.
Scott, Lord William


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Selley, H. R.


Duggan, H. J.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Dunglass, Lord
Loftus, P. C.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Eales, J. F.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Eckersley, P. T.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Elliot. Rt. Hon. W. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Elliston, G. S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Smithers, Sir W.


Elmley, Viscount
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Emery, J. F.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Entwistle, C. F.
Magnay, T.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Erskine Hill, A. G.
Maitland, A.
Spans, W. P.


Findlay, Sir E.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Fleming, E. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Furness, S. N.
Maxwell, S. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mellor, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)


Gledhill, G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sutcliffe, H


Goldie, N. B.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Moreing, A. C.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morgan, R. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morris, J. P. (Safford, N.)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Touche, G. C.


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Train, Sir J.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Munro, P.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Nall, Sir J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Turton, R. H.


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wakefield, W. W.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Patrick, C. M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hannah, I. C.
Peaks, O.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Peat, C. U.
Ward, Lleut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Harvey, G.
Percy, Sir G.
Ward. Irene (Wallsend)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Warrender, Sir V.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Petherick, M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Pllkington, R.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Plugge, L. F.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hopkinson, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.
Porritt, R. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lleut.-Cotonel G.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Radford, E. A.
Wragg, H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Raikcs, H. V. A. M.



Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hulbert, N. J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Major George Davies and Dr.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ramadan, Sir E.
Morris-Jones.


Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed. Committee report Progress; to sit again

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING ACT, 1934.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

11.12 p.m.

Miss WARD: My reason for raising this question on the Adjournment is that, when the North Atlantic Shipping Bill was under discussion and the question of a subsequent guarantee for the purpose of building a possible sister ship to the "Queen Mary" was raised, I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would consider all relevant questions before a final decision was taken as to a guarantee being forthcoming. He said as there was no immediate prospect of a sister ship he did not propose to discuss that issue. The other day in a supplementary question I asked whether we could now discuss all the relevant facts and my right hon. Friend said that the proposal had already been discussed. I thought it was only fair to put my point about the relevant questions. I do not propose to say anything about which river is to be the lucky one to receive the order, though I should be less than human if I did not desire that it should come to the Tyne, but I quite appreciate that it is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the country as a whole.
All that I am asking is that one or two of what I consider to be the relevant issues should he taken into consideration before a final decision is taken between the Government and the Cunard White Star Company. The building of a ship of that capacity is a tremendous advertisement to any river in the world. The fact that a ship of such magnitude is on the stocks in any yard makes for the reduction of establishment charges and puts the yard which has the honour of building such a ship into a first-class position so far as tendering for other shipbuilding orders is concerned. Also, so far as Admiralty work is concerned, there can be no question that, on the major issue on which tenders are allocated, any yard having such a ship on its stocks must have an enormous advantage over its competitors. My right hon. Friend may say that it is the business of the Admiralty, but if I may say one thing about the Government, it is that,

in the very difficult situation we shall have to face in the future industrially, it would be simpler if there could be a little more co-operation between the Government Departments as far as major problems are concerned. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when discussing these proposals with the Cunard White Star Company, to bear all these issues in mind. I am certain that when my right hon. Friend comes to reply he will say that it is purely a business matter, and that economic and business questions are the sole factors.
While I appreciate that the position of my right hon. Friend is such that he has to look solely at the financial position of the country, I suggest that as far as the Government are concerned, the welfare of the nation as a whole has to be taken into consideration. Of course, every one of us wish the "Queen Mary" the very best of luck in the future. I have not a very warm personal admiration for the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), but my right hon. Friend will be aware that the hon. Member has, both in the Press and as a result of his broadcast, let it be known among the unemployed what a magnificent thing it was—he does not always say that it was due to the National Government—that the "Queen Mary" was allowed to be finished as a result of the guarantee given under the North Atlantic Shipping Act. All the unemployed in other parts of the country who have listened to these very moving and touching descriptions ask that when the next ship is due to be placed the Government should take into consideration the interests of all the other rivers which hope that they may he the lucky river to receive the order. That is quite natural and human.
My right hon. Friend takes a pride, as does every one of us, in the democratic system of government in this country. Everybody takes a pride in it and believes in it irrespective of party politics, but what the people of this country like as a result of their belief in this democratic system is ordinary justice. It is not necessarily that they would disagree with the Government in any decision they might make, but they would like to know that, before a decision is taken, every aspect of the question is considered. All that I ask is that my


right hon. Friend should say that, before a final decision is taken as between the Government and the Cunard-White Star Company, all relevant factors, such as the advantage the Clyde has already had and the advantages to the unemployed on Clydeside compared with other parts of the country, should be considered, and that when he has weighed all aspects of the situation he will make his decision and I am certain that that decision will be a wise one. I apologise for having to keep the House after a heavy day, but I wanted to say this, and it is rather difficult to find an appropriate moment. I think hon. Members who represent unemployed in different parts of the country want to know that everything that can be said has been fairly weighed in the interests of all concerned.

11.21 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): It is impossible not to recognise the honesty and sincerity of the advocacy of my lion. Friend and also the moderation and fairness with which she has put her case. She is not asking for any assurance that a second vessel, if it should be ordered, as a sister ship to the "Queen Mary," should be placed on the Tyne, or any other river. She has asked for an assurance that all relevant factors shall be taken into consideration. It is not difficult to give that assurance. But if I confine myself to the bald statement that every relevant factor will be given full consideration before a decision is come to I am not sure that I shall be doing full and complete justice to my hon. Friend. I ought to say what the relevant factors are. Nobody doubts that even such a magnificent specimen of marine architecture as the "Queen Mary" can be built on other rivers than the Clyde. No doubt the Tyne, for example, has a claim, by its past achievements and the skill and experience of its designers and craftsmen, to be able to produce a ship equal to any in the world. But when the hon.

Member put her case it seemed to me that she was almost suggesting, perhaps not intending to do so, that the fact that one ship had been built in one place might be put on the debit side in considering whether a second ship should be taken to the same place. If that was her intention, I could not go so far as to agree with her. The Government did not in the original terms reserve to itself any right to a final decision as to where the second ship should be placed if it was to be ordered, but at the same time in considering any proposals that might be made to the Government, the Government certainly would have to take knowledge of a number of factors, among which would be, other things being equal, the value to the country as a whole, the provision of employment and the great publicity value in one place rather than another.
My hon. Friend will recognise that the Government, as representing the country, has now a very substantial financial interest in the successful working of the great concern under which the "Queen Mary" is about to work, and, therefore, if it appears that great economic advantages to the company will be secured by placing the order in one district rather than in another, it will be difficult to say that the other factors in question were so important as to override a consideration of that kind. My hon. Friend would not expect me to tell her what the value of these various factors is. All I can say to her is that certainly I will take all the relevant factors into consideration, but she will realise that a major factor in the final decision must be the result on the successful working of the Cunard-White Star Company of the placing of the order in one or in another part of the country.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.